We performed a comparison between MicroFocus Fortify on Demand and Veracode based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Veracode nudges ahead of Microfocus Fortify on Demand in this comparison. Veracode users feel the solution enables them to analyze every security flaw, discrepancy, and vulnerability, and feel the reporting is very concise. Microfocus can be very taxing on resources and can potentially slow processes down considerably.
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"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 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"
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"The user interface is good."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"It is a cloud-based platform, so every organization or every security team in the organization is concerned about uploading their code because ultimately the code is intellectual property. The most useful thing about Veracode is that if you want to upload the code, they accept only byte code. They do not accept the plain source code as an input. The code is converted into binary code, and it is uploaded to Veracode. So, it is quite secure. It also has the automation feature where you can integrate security during the initial stages of your software development life cycle. It is pretty much easy with Veracode. Veracode provides integration with multiple tools and platforms, such as Visual Studio, Java, and Eclipse. Developers can integrate with those tools by using Jenkins. The security consultation or the support that they provide is also really good. Its user management is also good. You can restrict the users for a particular application so that only certain developers will be able to see the code that has been scanned. Their reporting model is really good. For each customer, they provide a program manager. Every quarter, they have their reviews about how much it has scanned. They also ensure that the tool has been used efficiently."
"I don't have to have a team of developers behind me that keep up with all the latest threats because the subscription service they provide for me does that."
"Veracode creates a list of issues. You can go through them one by one and click through to a new window with all the information about the issue discovered."
"It helps me to detect vulnerabilities."
"Veracode Fix is a new feature that functions similarly to auto-remediation for low or medium flaw codes."
"Veracode is very easy to use."
"It's not "one policy fits all." I really like that Veracode allows me to set up specific policies that I can apply to applications."
"It has improved the quality of code being delivered for test and its vulnerability resolutions timeline has improved."
"Reporting could be improved."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"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."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"I would also like to see some improvement in the speed. That is really the only complaint, but in all reality we have a massive Java application that needs to be scanned. Our developers are saying, "It takes 72 hours to scan it." That is probably the nature of the beast, and I'm actually pretty accepting of that time frame, but since it's a complaint that I get, faster is always better. I don't necessarily think that the speed is bad as it is, just that faster would be better."
"The ideal situation in terms of putting the results in front of the developers would be with Veracode integration into the developer environment (IDE). They do have a plugin, which we've used in the past, but we were not as positive about it."
"The runtime code analysis could be improved so that we can see every element in one place."
"The pricing for qualified startups such as Neo4j could be improved."
"Veracode should include the feature to run multiple scales at a time."
"The scans were sometimes not accurate in version 2022. There were some false positives in the vulnerability reports. We used to get false positives, and we were responsible for checking all of the alerts and determining whether they were true positives or false positives. They might have already improved it. If they have not, they can look into how to mitigate false positives."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"It takes a lot of time to scan the applications. They can make them faster and provide an option to scan a specific portion of the app. Such a feature would be very helpful."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. 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 Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, OWASP Zap and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Fortify on Demand vs. Veracode 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.
