We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and Polyspace Code Prover 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."Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"The licensing was good."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"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."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. 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 Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and Semmle QL. See our Fortify on Demand vs. Polyspace Code Prover 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.