We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail."
"One thing that I like about Veracode is that it is quite a good tool for dynamic application testing."
"The product’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is great."
"The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months."
"Wide range of platforms and technology assessments."
"Before Veracode, the application was deployed to the production server and there would be a lot of bugs and issues. Once we implemented the Veracode scan, the full deployment issues were drastically reduced."
"The feature I like most in Veracode is that it clearly specifies the line in the entire file where a vulnerability is found."
"I believe the static analysis is Veracode's best and most valuable feature. Software composition analysis is a feature that most people don't use, and we don't use SCA for most of our applications. However, this is an essential feature because it provides insight into the third-party libraries we use."
"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."
"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."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"The initial setup was complex."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"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."
"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."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"The user interface could be more sleek. Some scanning requirements aren't flexible. Some features take some time for new users to understand (like what exactly "modules" are)."
"Sometimes, the scans halt or drop for some reason, and we need to get help from Veracode to fix it."
"Veracode can be improved in terms of software composition analysis and related vulnerabilities."
"The feature that allows me to read which mitigation answer was submitted, and to approve it, requires me to use do so in different screens. That makes it a little bit more complicated because I have to read and then I have to go back and make sure it falls under the same number ID number. That part is a little bit complicated from my perspective, because that's what I use the most."
"The security labs integration has room for improvement."
"There are few languages that take time for scanning. It covers the majority of languages from C to Scala, but it doesn't support certain languages and the newer versions of certain languages. For example, it doesn't support SAP and new JavaScript frameworks such as Node.js and React JS. They can include support for these. If you go to their website, you can see the list of languages that are currently supported. The false-positive rates are also something they can work on."
"Improving sorting through findings reports to filter by only what is critically relevant will help developers focus on issues."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 193 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and Checkmarx One, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Veracode report.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.
