We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Protect 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 solution has excellent real-time capabilities."
"The product gives a few false positives. We get 99 percent true positives."
"Protect provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"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."
"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
"Protect's reporting GUI is very basic. To get all statuses from the APIs, we needed to write our own KPI dashboard to provide reports."
"There's room for improvement in the initial setup."
"Contrast Security Protect needs to improve integration."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
Contrast Security Protect is ranked 32nd in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Contrast Security Protect is rated 8.4, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Contrast Security Protect writes "It provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks". 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 ". Contrast Security Protect is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Sonatype Lifecycle and HCL AppScan, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect. See our Contrast Security Protect 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.