We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Fortify Application Defender 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 features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"Meta data is always needed."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify Application Defender is ranked 34th in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and SonarCloud, whereas Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Coverity, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, SonarQube, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand. See our Checkmarx One vs. Fortify Application Defender report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
Fewer false positives with CX than Fortify. More integrated.
Looking at the Gartner report I would say that Checkmarx is way easier to set up (initial setup) compared to Micro Focus Fortify.
Also, the financial strength of the Micro Focus Fortify spin/merger is a concern so investments could be at risk.
The major difference is that Checkmarx scans the code without compiling the code. This has a great advantage as code building issues are eliminated,
scan time is very less and false positive is less to some extent. One more major this is Checkmarx learns as you eliminate false positives and does not show the same issue again. We can perform incremental scans on the codebase where the old issue is nicely marked as "Recurring" and new ones in Red as NEW. Checkmarx has a highly customizable filter creation where you can create a filter that can eliminate the common recurring issues in
scans. This feature is very flexible and you can write your own filters and also, write specific patterns that are found in manual review which is a
great help as coding styles differ form teams to teams.
Thanks a lot. Thank you for the information.