Compare Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 3rd in Application Security with 9 reviews while SonarQube which is ranked 2nd in Application Security with 17 reviews. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 7.6. 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 SonarQube writes "Great birds-eye view dashboard with detailed code metrics in the drill-down". Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx and Veracode, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Veracode, Checkmarx and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand. See our Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
55,471 views|23,994 comparisons
SonarQube Logo
67,054 views|45,259 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
360,012 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 most valuable features are the dashboard reports and the ease of integrating it with Jenkins.Strong code evaluation for budget-minded clients.If code coverage is a low number then that's of great value to me.SonarQube is good for checking and maintaining code quality.Using SonarQube has helped us to identify areas of technical debt to work on, resulting in better code, fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer bugs.We advise all of our developers to have this solution in place.If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool.We have the software metrics that SonarQube gives us, which is something we did not have before. This helps us work towards aiming coding standards to empower us to move in the direction of better code quality. SonarQube provides targets and metrics for that.

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 »

Although it has Sonar built into it, it is still lacking. Customization features of identifying a particular attack still need to be worked on. To give you an example: if we want to scan and do a false positive analysis, those types of features are missing. If we want to rescan something from a particular point that is a feature that is also missing. It’s in our queue. That will hopefully save a lot of time.Expression of common vulnerabilities and exposures is not always current.I don't believe you can have metrics of code quality based upon code analysis. I don't think it's possible for a computer to do it.I would like to see more options for security, beyond the basics like SQL injection.The solution is a bit lacking on the security side, in terms of finding and identifying vulnerabilities.I would like to see dynamic code analysis in the next version of the software.The reporting is good, but I am not able to download a specific report as a PDF, so downloading reports is something that should be looked at.We've been using the Community Edition, which means that we get to use it at our leisure, and they're kind enough to literally give it to us. However, it takes a fair amount of effort to figure out how to get everything up and running. Since we didn't go with the professional paid version, we're not entitled to support. Of course that could be self-correcting if we were to make the step to buy into this and really use it. Then their technical support would be available to us to make strides for using it better.

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.We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000.

Read more »

A low cost long-term solution for non-critical situations.We are using the free, unlicensed version.The costs for this application, for the kind of job it does, are pretty decent.We're using their free Community Edition version.Some of the plugins that were previously free are not free now.The price point on SonarQube is good.The licence is standard open source licensingThis product is open source and very convenient.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security solutions are best for your needs.
360,012 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Answers from the Community
Miriam Tover
TIMOTHY THORSONVendor

I think the benefit of Fortify on Demand is that it covers all the scan types: DAST, SAST. RASP, and Mobile. The research team that builds the vuln database is solid and well-staffed.

11 January 19
Top Comparisons
Compared 46% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Also Known As
Fortify on DemandSonar
Learn
Veracode
Micro Focus
SonarQube
Video Not Available
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.

SonarQube is the central place to manage code quality, offering visual reporting on and across projects and enabling to replay the past to follow metrics evolution
Offer
Learn More About Veracode

Stay Up-To-Date on Application Security 

Learn more about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Learn more about SonarQube
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, ReknerSAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more. Bank of America, Siemens, Cognizant, Thales, Cisco, eBay
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm36%
Insurance Company18%
Consumer Goods9%
Government5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm29%
Software R&D Company13%
Comms Service Provider10%
Healthcare Company8%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm33%
Non Tech Company11%
Manufacturing Company11%
Government11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company20%
Manufacturing Company20%
Financial Services Firm20%
Government9%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm42%
Healthcare Company8%
Government8%
Comms Service Provider8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm26%
Retailer9%
Pharma/Biotech Company9%
Comms Service Provider9%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise51%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise72%
REVIEWERS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise67%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise5%
Large Enterprise77%
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise23%
Large Enterprise53%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business17%
Midsize Enterprise1%
Large Enterprise81%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
360,012 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