We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and GitHub 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 licensing was good."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"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."
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The solution is scalable."
"The control is the most valuable feature as developers can work on a single code."
"The code sharing and updated history are valuable features."
"There are no issues. It's simple, easy, and fully compatible from my perspective with Git."
"The most valuable feature is the source code management. It's very helpful and it's a great product."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most important feature of GitHub is the maintainability of the versions of the code."
"The most valuable features of GitHub are the ease of integration into Microsoft Azure DevOps. The process that you need to deploy into Microsoft Azure becomes fairly simple and the templates are already available, a lot of the engineers find it easier to use."
"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."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"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."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"Could be more user friendly."
"GitHub could improve by being more user-friendly."
"The GitHub repository needs an upgraded user interface and overall UI improvements."
"I would like a more graphical, user-friendly UI, to avoid writing so much code on cmd."
"There can be conflict issues when two developers work on the same file or line of code, and it would be great to see that improved, possibly with an AI solution."
"The descriptions within Github could be more user-friendly to show the trees of Gitflow."
"GitHub needs to improve its UI."
"If something has to be moved into approvals, and if they don't approve it in a few hours, then they should move the approval request to some other user, or they should have a way to escalate it."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while GitHub is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 64 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while GitHub is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, AWS CodeCommit, Atlassian SourceTree, Bitbucket and Checkmarx One. See our Fortify on Demand vs. GitHub 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.
