Compare Checkmarx vs. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Checkmarx is ranked 3rd in Application Security with 8 reviews while Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 4th in Application Security with 8 reviews. Checkmarx is rated 7.8, while Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Works well with Windows servers but no Linux support and takes too long to scan files". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand writes "Detects vulnerabilities and provides useful suggestions, but doesn't understand complex websites". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, whereas Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode and Checkmarx. See our Checkmarx vs. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
47,953 views|25,711 comparisons
Checkmarx Logo
41,756 views|24,619 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx vs. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,374 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle.One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.It has an easy-to-use interface.Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools.It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities.

Read more »

Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before.Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution.The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete.The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time.It is a stable product.Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report.It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are.It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences.

Read more »

t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution.The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it.I do not remember any issues with stability.The licensing was good.The installation was easy.It improves future security scans.Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out.

Read more »

Cons
One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications.Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives.The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report.It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions.

Read more »

Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues.The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers.With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too.It is an expensive solution.It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use.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).Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient.

Read more »

The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment.Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse.There were some regulated compliances, which were not there.Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues.We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days.It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers.If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works.Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool.I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms.Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good.I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others.

Read more »

We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution.It is an expensive solution.Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up.We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year. I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year).Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications).

Read more »

It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount.The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server.The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security solutions are best for your needs.
372,374 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 41% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Also Known As
Fortify on Demand
Learn
Veracode
Checkmarx
Micro Focus
Overview

Veracode is an application security company that offers an automated cloud-based service for securing web, mobile and third-party enterprise applications. Veracode provides multiple security analysis technologies on a single platform, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, mobile application behavioral analysis and software composition analysis.

Checkmarx CxSAST is a highly accurate and flexible Static Code Analysis product that allows organizations to automatically scan un-compiled / un-built code and identify hundreds of security vulnerabilities in all major coding languages. CxSAST is available as a standalone product and can be effectively integrated into the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) to streamline detection and remediation. CxSAST can be deployed on-premise in a private data center or hosted via a public cloud.

Whitepaper: I, II

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand’s application security-as-a-service is the easy and flexible way to identify vulnerabilities in your applications without additional investment in software or personnel. Allow our global team to work for you, providing support and technical expertise 24/7.

Offer
Learn More About Veracode

Stay Up-To-Date on Application Security 

Learn more about Checkmarx
Learn more about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, ReknerYIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLCSAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm35%
Insurance Company17%
Consumer Goods9%
Healthcare Company4%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company37%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm9%
Media Company5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm57%
Software R&D Company14%
Engineering Company14%
Comms Service Provider14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company29%
Financial Services Firm15%
Comms Service Provider12%
Manufacturing Company6%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm33%
Retailer11%
Non Tech Company11%
Manufacturing Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company37%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm9%
Manufacturing Company7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business22%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise51%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise11%
Large Enterprise77%
REVIEWERS
Small Business30%
Midsize Enterprise22%
Large Enterprise48%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise3%
Large Enterprise74%
REVIEWERS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise67%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise3%
Large Enterprise78%
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx vs. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,374 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Application Security 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.
Sign Up with Email