We performed a comparison between Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Code Analysis solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The Software Security Center, which is often overlooked, stands out as the most effective feature."
"Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like password credentials and access keys embedded in the code."
"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"It's helped us free up staff time."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"We've found the documentation to be very good."
"The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful."
"Valuable features for us are the static scanning of the software, which is very important to us; the ability to set policy profiles that are specific to us; the software composition analysis, to give us reports on known vulnerabilities from our third-party components."
"The Veracode technical support is very good. They are responsive and very knowledgeable."
"Veracode Security Labs are fantastic. My team loves getting the hands-on experience of putting in a flaw and fixing it. It's interactive. We've gotten decent support from the sales and software engineers, so the initial support was excellent. They scheduled a consultation call to dive deep and discuss why we see these findings and codes. That was incredibly helpful."
"The product’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is great."
"There have been a lot of benefits gained from Veracode. Compared to other tools, Veracode has good flexibility with an easy way to run a scan. We get in-depth details on how to fix things and go through the process. They provide good process documents, community, and consultation for any issues that occur during the use of Veracode."
"This is a great tool for learning about potential vulnerabilities in code."
"The static scan and the detailed reports, which include issue information and permissions, are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features of Veracode Static Analysis are its ability to work with GitLab and GitHub so that you can do the reviews and force the code."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good."
"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."
"It can be tricky if you want to exclude some files from scanning. For instance, if you do not want to scan and push testing files to Fortify Software Security Center, that is tricky with some IDEs, such as IntelliJ. We found that there is an Exclude feature that is not working. We reported that to them for future fixing. It needs some work on the plugins to make them consistent across IDEs and make them easier."
"Their licensing is expensive."
"The product shows false positives for Python applications."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"Once your report has been generated, you need to review the report with consultation team, especially if it is too detailed on the development side or regarding the language. Then, you need some professional help from their end to help you understand whatever has been identified. Scheduling consultation takes a longer time. So, if you are running multiple reports at the same time, then you need to schedule a multiple consultation times with one of their developers. There are few developers on their end who work can work with your developers, and their schedules are very tight."
"The UI could be better. Also, there are some scenarios where there is no security flaw, but the report indicates that there is a security flaw. The report is not perfectly accurate. So, the accuracy of the scanning reports needs improvement."
"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."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"One area for improvement is the navigation in the UI. For junior developers or newcomers to the team, it can be confusing. The UI doesn't clearly bundle together certain elements associated with a scan. While running a scan, there are various aspects linked to it, but in the UI, they appear separate. It would be beneficial if they could redesign the UI to make it more intuitive for users."
"It can be a bit complex because it takes a lot of time to have it complete the task."
"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."
Fortify Static Code Analyzer is ranked 3rd in Static Code Analysis with 13 reviews while Veracode is ranked 1st in Static Code Analysis with 194 reviews. Fortify Static Code Analyzer is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify Static Code Analyzer writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". 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 Static Code Analyzer is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Sonatype Lifecycle, GitLab and Mend.io, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Fortify Static Code Analyzer vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Static Code Analysis vendors.
We monitor all Static Code Analysis 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.
