We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and Seeker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."
"Reporting could be improved."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 9th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 57 reviews while Seeker is ranked 25th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Seeker is rated 7.0. 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 Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube and Polaris Software Integrity Platform.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.