We performed a comparison between CodeSonar 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 tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"It has been able to scale."
"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"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."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"It was expensive."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"Reporting could be improved."
CodeSonar is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 7 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. CodeSonar is rated 8.2, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CodeSonar writes "Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand". 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 ". CodeSonar is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, Polyspace Code Prover and Semgrep Code, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect. See our CodeSonar vs. Fortify on Demand 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.
