Compare Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. PortSwigger Burp

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 5th in Application Security with 8 reviews while PortSwigger Burp is ranked 6th in Application Security with 10 reviews. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 7.8, while PortSwigger Burp is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand writes "Detects vulnerabilities and provides useful suggestions, but doesn't understand complex websites". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp writes "Great design, excellent features like Intruder , Repeater with plenty of plug-ins from community support ". Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode and Checkmarx, whereas PortSwigger Burp is most compared with OWASP Zap, WebInspect and HCL AppScan. See our Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. PortSwigger Burp report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
50,234 views|26,819 comparisons
PortSwigger Burp Logo
18,280 views|15,307 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
379,343 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle.One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.It has an easy-to-use interface.Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools.It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities.

Read more »

t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution.The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it.I do not remember any issues with stability.The licensing was good.The installation was easy.It improves future security scans.Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out.

Read more »

The initial setup was really straightforward.BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding.The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately.The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues.Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it.Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them.This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps.This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives.

Read more »

Cons
One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications.Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives.The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report.It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions.

Read more »

The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment.Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse.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.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.It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers.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.

Read more »

The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors.The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative.The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution.The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired.I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory.The scanner and crawler need to be improved.There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual.The Initial setup is a bit complex.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works.Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool.I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms.Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good.I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others.

Read more »

It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount.The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server.The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps.

Read more »

There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable.The yearly cost is about $300.Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition.Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year.The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees.This is a value for money product.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security solutions are best for your needs.
379,343 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 74% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Also Known As
Fortify on DemandBurp
Learn
Veracode
Micro Focus
PortSwigger
Overview

Veracode is an application security company that offers an automated cloud-based service for securing web, mobile and third-party enterprise applications. Veracode provides multiple security analysis technologies on a single platform, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, mobile application behavioral analysis and software composition analysis.

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand’s application security-as-a-service is the easy and flexible way to identify vulnerabilities in your applications without additional investment in software or personnel. Allow our global team to work for you, providing support and technical expertise 24/7.

Burp Suite is an integrated platform for performing security testing of web applications. Its various tools work seamlessly together to support the entire testing process, from initial mapping and analysis of an application's attack surface, through to finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities.

Offer
Keep your software secure

Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.

Learn more about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Learn more about PortSwigger Burp
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, ReknerSAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more. Maven Security Consulting, OWASP Italy, Penetration Testing Firm
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm33%
Insurance Company17%
Consumer Goods8%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company39%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm7%
Media Company6%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm33%
Government11%
Energy/Utilities Company11%
Software R&D Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company41%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm8%
Manufacturing Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Comms Service Provider12%
Media Company9%
Government9%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business22%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise52%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business15%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise77%
REVIEWERS
Small Business24%
Midsize Enterprise12%
Large Enterprise64%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business18%
Midsize Enterprise2%
Large Enterprise80%
REVIEWERS
Small Business31%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise54%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
379,343 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Application Security 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.
Sign Up with Email