We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and Synopsys Defensics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools."The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"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 features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"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."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
Earn 20 points
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Synopsys Defensics is rated 8.6. 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 Synopsys Defensics writes "Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with Snyk, SonarQube, Invicti, HCL AppScan and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional.
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.