"It is very easy and user friendly. It never requires any kind of technical support. You can do everything on your own."
"One of the strong points of this solution is that it allows you to incorporate it into a CICB pipeline. It has the ability to do incremental scans. If you scan a very large application, it might take two hours to do the initial scan. The subsequent scans, as people are making changes to the app, scan the Delta and are very fast. That's a really nice implementation. The way they have incorporated the functionality of the incremental scans is something to be aware of. It is quite good. It has been very solid. We haven't really had any issues, and it does what it advertises to do very nicely."
"We've found the documentation to be very good."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"Its flexibility is most valuable. It is such a flexible tool. It can be implemented in a number of ways. It can do anything you want it to do. It can be fully automated within a DevOps pipeline. It can also be used in an ad hoc, special test case scenario and anywhere in between."
"Its pricing can be improved. It is a little bit high priced. It would be better if it was a little less expensive. It is a good tool, and we're still figuring out how to fully leverage it. There are some questions regarding whether it can scan the MuleSoft code. We don't know if this is a gap in the tool or something else. This is one thing that we're just working through right now, and I am not ready to conclude that there is a weakness there. MuleSoft is kind of its own beast, and we're trying to see how we get it to work with Checkmarx."
"It can have better licensing models."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
Today's software is constructed using open source components and third-party libraries, tied together with custom code. Hackers target vulnerable open source components to access sensitive and valuable data, while data protection regulations become more stringent in an effort to encourage better software security practices. While all this is happening, DevOps is taking the world by storm and the burden of securing software is rapidly expanding under the purview of the developers who create it.
Trust us, we get it. You're caught between a strong desire to innovate and a sincere dislike of having your company’s name on the news as “the most recent data breach.”
That's why we made CxSCA, the most effective next-gen software composition analysis solution designed to help development teams ship secure software quickly while giving AppSec teams the insight and control they need to improve your software security risk posture.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) is a frequently used Application Security (AppSec) tool, which scans an application’s source, binary, or byte code. A white-box testing tool, it identifies the root cause of vulnerabilities and helps remediate the underlying security flaws. SAST solutions analyze an application from the “inside out” and do not reed a running system to perform a scan.
Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is ranked 9th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 2 reviews while Fortify Static Code Analyzer is ranked 1st in Static Code Analysis with 3 reviews. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is rated 9.0, while Fortify Static Code Analyzer is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis writes "A solid, stable, and easy-to-deploy solution that allows you to incorporate it into a CICB pipeline and has the ability to do incremental scans". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Static Code Analyzer writes "Super scalable, fairly stable, very flexible, and can do anything you want it to do". Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is most compared with Black Duck, JFrog Xray, Snyk and FOSSA, whereas Fortify Static Code Analyzer is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, JFrog Xray, Veracode Static Analysis and WhiteSource.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.