We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Synopsys Defensics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about HCLTech, OpenText, Rapid7 and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)."The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"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."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"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."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"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 WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Synopsys Defensics is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". 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 WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and HCL AppScan, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Fortify on Demand, Invicti and HCL AppScan.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.