We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and Fortify WebInspect 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 most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable 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."
"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 UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"The solution is very fast."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"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."
"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."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"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."
"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."
"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."
"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0. 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 Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Snyk, whereas Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Acunetix, OWASP Zap, HCL AppScan and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Fortify on Demand 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.
