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."I do not remember any issues with stability."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"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."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"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."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"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."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The solution is easy to use."
"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."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise. In the next release, we need more reports and more analytic views for all the applications. There is no enterprise view in Fortify. I would like enterprise views and reports."
"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."
"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."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"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."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"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."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"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."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"The initial setup was complex."
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.