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."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"
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"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."
"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."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"Reporting could be improved."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"The tool has some stability issues."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 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 and CodeSonar. 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.