We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Assess and Fortify WebInspect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."
"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."
"This has changed the way that developers are looking at usage of third-party libraries, upfront. It's changing our model of development and our culture of development to ensure that there is more thought being put into the usage of third-party libraries."
"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."
"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."
"It is a stable solution...Contrast Security Assess is one of the first players in this market, so they have experience and customers, especially abroad. Overall, it's a good product."
"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."
"The most valuable feature is the continuous monitoring aspect: the fact that we don't have to wait for scans to complete for the tool to identify vulnerabilities. They're automatically identified through developers' business-as-usual processes."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"Technical support has been good."
"The setup of the solution is different for each application. That's the one thing that has been a challenge for us. The deployment itself is simple, but it's tough to automate because each application is different, so each installation process for Contrast is different."
"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."
"The product's retesting part needs improvement. The tool also needs improvement in the suggestions provided for fixing vulnerabilities. It relies more on documentation rather than on quick fixes."
"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."
"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."
"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."
"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."
"Contrast's ability to support upgrades on the actual agents that get deployed is limited. Our environment is pretty much entirely Java. There are no updates associated with that. You have to actually download a new version of the .jar file and push that out to your servers where your app is hosted. That can be quite cumbersome from a change-management perspective."
"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."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"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."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"The scanner could be better."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
Contrast Security Assess is ranked 22nd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 11 reviews while Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews. Contrast Security Assess is rated 8.8, while Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Contrast Security Assess writes "We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications". 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". Contrast Security Assess is most compared with Veracode, Seeker, Checkmarx, OWASP Zap and HCL AppScan, whereas Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, OWASP Zap, Acunetix and Aqua Cloud Security Platform. See our Contrast Security Assess vs. Fortify WebInspect report.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.