We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Fortify on Demand 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."The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"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."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent. When we are coding the endpoint it will not work, we have to use Windows Agent. This is something they could improve."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
Acunetix is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Fortify on Demand report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.