We performed a comparison between Checkmarx and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The two solutions are very comparable. All categories received similar ratings except that Checkmarx got better rewviews on deployment and support.
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"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 user interface is good."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"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."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"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."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Snyk, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk. See our Checkmarx One vs. Fortify on Demand report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.