We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and GitHub Advanced Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."
"GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 8th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews while GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx One and GitLab. See our Fortify on Demand vs. GitHub Advanced Security report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.