We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and Rapid7 InsightAppSec 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."Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"It is a very robust solution."
"In Rapid7 InsightAppSec, a distinctive feature is the provision of a CDM for integrating web servers and web applications. To establish the connection between these applications, you only need to paste the provided CDN into your metadata. Once connected, every piece of information, including vulnerabilities, can be accessed. It also offers demo sessions."
"The initial setup for us was easy enough. We didn't face too many issues. Deployment took maybe 30 minutes. It's quite quick and doesn't cause too much trouble at the outset."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"The solution is stable."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"The templates feature is very easy. You just choose the kind of attack you want on your web application, and you run it against that template and receive a report. It's great."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"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."
"When you add new projects for the same product, it either duplicates or replaces the scan configuration. If I run a scan for the same product with a different scan configuration, it should keep the previous scan configuration and not replace it with the new scan configuration. It should just add the new scan configuration. That would be helpful. They do keep the results as it is, but the scan configuration keeps changing. For example, I have set a scan configuration to a full scan, and next week, I want to run a new scan for the same product with some changes or new functionalities. I want to run a partial scan. Currently, if I change the scan configuration to partial, it changes the old one also to partial. That should be improved."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement in detecting phishing pages."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"In the future, if they can have integration with a lot of ticketing systems then it would be amazing."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"The interface should be a little bit easier to manage. Sometimes, the logic that they use is kind of strange. They need to work a little bit more on their interface to make it more understandable. The interface is the only problem. I'm using Rapid7, which is very intuitive. There are other applications available in the market with a better interface. They can include more techniques or options to test different types of security because the templates are limited. It would be great to see them follow the MITRE ATT&CK framework or what is there in tools like Veracode and Synopsys."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec 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 Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Acunetix. See our Fortify on Demand vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
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.