We performed a comparison between Checkmarx 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."We use the solution for dynamic application testing."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"It is a stable product."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"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 solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"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."
Checkmarx is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify Application Defender is ranked 34th in Application Security Tools with 9 reviews. Checkmarx is rated 7.6, while Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx 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 "Reliable solution with excellent machine learning algorithms but expensive and lacking support". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Sonatype Lifecycle, whereas Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Coverity, SonarQube, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, Fortify on Demand and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Checkmarx 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.