We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and GitLab 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."One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"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."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it."
"I like GitLab's security and SAS tools."
"The important feature is the entire process of versioning source code maintenance and easy deployment. It is a necessity for the CI/CD pipeline."
"This product is always evolving, and they listen to the customers."
"It is a speedy platform compared to the others I have used. I have also enjoyed using the platform as this solution offers a good user experience."
"It is very useful for reviews. We are using branch merging operations and full reset operations. It is also very useful for merging our code and tracking another branch. The graph diagrams of Git are very useful. Its interface is straightforward and not too complex for us."
"We're only using the basic features of GitLab and haven't used any advanced features. The solution works fine, so that's what we like about GitLab. We're party using GitHub and GitLab. We have a GitHub server, while we use GitLab locally or only within our team, and it works okay. We don't have any significant problems with the solution. We also found the straightforward setup, stability, and scalability of GitLab valuable."
"A user friendly solution."
"CI/CD is very good. The version control system is also good. These are the two features that we use."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"It would be highly beneficial if Fortify on Demand incorporated runtime analysis, similar to how Contrast Security utilizes agents for proactive application security."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"I would like to see security increased in the future. A secure environment is very important."
"We'd like to see better integration with the Atlassian ecosystem."
"GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users."
"GitLab can improve by integrating with more tools, such as servers with Docker."
"We are having a few problems integrating with Jira at the moment, which is something that our IT department is investigating."
"I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five."
"It can be free for commercial use."
"We would like to generate document pages from the sources."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while GitLab 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 GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton. See our Fortify on Demand vs. GitLab report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
