We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Fortify on Demand 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."The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"The installation was easy."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"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."
"The solution is very fast."
"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."
"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."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent. When we are coding the endpoint it will not work, we have to use Windows Agent. This is something they could improve."
"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."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
Acunetix is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Fortify on Demand 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.
