We performed a comparison between Fortify Static Code Analyzer and GitLab based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, OpenText and others in Static Code Analysis."The Software Security Center, which is often overlooked, stands out as the most effective feature."
"I like Fortify Software Security Center or Fortify SSC. This tool is installed on each developer's machine, but Fortify Software Security Center combines everything. We can meet there as security professionals and developers. The developers scan their code and publish the results there. We can then look at them from a security perspective and see whether they fixed the issues. We can agree on whether something is a false positive and make decisions."
"I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found. Fortify release updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"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."
"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."
"It's helped us free up staff time."
"The tool helps to integrate CI/CD pipeline deployments. It is very easy to learn. Its security model is good."
"We like that we can create branches and then the branches can be reviewed and you can mesh those branches back. You can independently work with your own branch, you don't need to really control the core of other people."
"Key features allow creation of well-presented Wiki that includes ideas, development, and domains."
"GitLab's best feature is Actions."
"CI/CD is valuable for me."
"The merging feature makes it easy later on for the deployment."
"A user friendly solution."
"CI/CD and GitLab scanning are the most valuable features."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"The product shows false positives for Python applications."
"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."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"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."
"GitLab's UI could be improved."
"This solution could be improved by adding modifications such as slack notifications."
"There is room for improvement in GitLab Agents."
"It can be free for commercial use."
"I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five."
"GitLab could improve the patch repository. It does not have support for Conan patch version regions. Additionally, better support for Kubernetes deployment is needed as part of the package."
"Reporting could be improved."
"GitLab's Windows version is yet not available and having this would be an improvement."
Fortify Static Code Analyzer is ranked 3rd in Static Code Analysis with 14 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews. Fortify Static Code Analyzer is rated 8.4, while GitLab is rated 8.6. 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 GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". Fortify Static Code Analyzer is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode, Sonatype Lifecycle and Mend.io, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, SonarQube, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline and Sonatype Lifecycle.
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.