We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and HCL AppScan 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."Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"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."
"The installation was easy."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The solution is very fast."
"We are now deploying less defects to production."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"AppScan is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"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."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"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."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"It has crashed at times."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"They have to improve support."
"Many silly false positives are produced."
"The databases for HCL are small and have room for improvement."
"I think being able to search across more containers, especially some of the docker elements. We need a little tighter integration there. That's the only thing I can see at this point."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 17 reviews while HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 19 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while HCL AppScan is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Seamless integration with various platforms and products, providing a centralized and comprehensive security analysis solutionand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes "A useful tool to scan applications that can be easily installed". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Veracode, Coverity and GitHub, whereas HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Fortify on Demand vs. HCL AppScan report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.