We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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."
"Technical support has been good."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"The best feature of Veracode is that we can do static and dynamic scans."
"Scanning of .war and .jar is key for us."
"The most valuable feature is the security and vulnerability parts of the solution. It shows medium to high vulnerabilities so we can find them, then upgrade our model before it is too late. It is useful because it automates security. Also, it makes things more efficient. So, there is no need for the security team to scan every time. The application team can update it whenever possible in development."
"Within SCA, there is an extremely valuable feature called vulnerable methods. It is able to determine within a vulnerable library which methods are vulnerable. That is very valuable, because in the vast majority of cases where a library is vulnerable, none of the vulnerable methods are actually used by the code. So, if we want to prioritize the way open source libraries are updated when a library is found vulnerable, then we want to prioritize the libraries which have vulnerable methods used within the code."
"It gives feedback to developers on the effectiveness of their secure coding practices."
"The coverage of backdoors attacks on security that's the most valuable for my clients."
"One of the features they have is Software Composition Analysis. When organizations use third-party, open source libraries with their application development, because they're open source they quite often have a lot of bugs. There are always patches coming out for those open source applications. You really have to stay on your toes and keep up with any third-party libraries that might be integrated into your application. Veracode's Software Composition Analysis scans those libraries and we find that very valuable."
"My experience with Veracode across the board every time, in all products, the technology, the product, the service, and the salespeople is fabulous."
"The initial setup was complex."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"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."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"The scanner could be better."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"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."
"False positives are a problem. Sometimes the flow paths are not accurate and don't represent real attack vectors, but this happens with every application that performs static analysis of the code. But it's under control. The number of false positives is not so high that it is unmanageable on our side."
"The UI is not user-friendly and can be improved."
"Maybe the pipeline scanning doesn't support enough languages. It might only support Java and Python only, so that could be improved."
"The Greenlight product that integrates into the IDE is not available for PHP, which is our primary language."
"Veracode's false positives have room for improvement."
"The scanning process for records could be faster and there is room for improvement in Veracode's performance."
"The static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives. But that's how it is with most static analysis tools... Also, the static analysis can sometimes take a little while. The time that it takes to do a scan should be improved."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. 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 Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and Checkmarx One, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Veracode report.
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.
