We performed a comparison between Fortify Application Defender and HCL AppScan 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 features are that you can do static analysis and dynamic analysis on a scheduled basis and that you can push the findings into JIRA."
"Good static analysis and dynamic analysis."
"It is SaaS hosted. That makes it very convenient to use. There is no initial time needed to set up an application. Scanning is a matter of minutes. You just log in, create an application profile, associate a security configuration, and that's about it. It takes 10 minutes to start. The lack of initial lead time or initial overhead to get going is the primary advantage."
"In terms of secure development, the SAST scan is very useful because we are able to identify security flaws in the code base itself, for the application."
"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."
"The static scan is the feature that we use the most, as it gives us insight into our source code. We have it integrated with our continuous integration, continuous delivery system, so we can get insight quickly."
"My experience with Veracode across the board every time, in all products, the technology, the product, the service, and the salespeople is fabulous."
"Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It enables developers to write secure code from the start by pointing them to the problematic line of code, and saying, "This function/method has security vulnerabilities," then suggests alternatives to fix it. Then, we adopt their suggestions of the tool. By implementing it in the right way, we can fix the issue. For example, if the tool has found a method where it copied one piece of memory into another piece of memory in the code. The tool points to problematic methods with the vulnerability and provides ways to code it more securely. By adopting their suggestions, we are fixing this vulnerability."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"AppScan is stable."
"There's extensive functionality with custom rules and a custom knowledge base."
"The HCL AppScan turnaround time for Burp Suite or any new feature request is pretty good, and that is why we are sticking with the HCL."
"This is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"It was easy to set up."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"Sometimes, I get feedback from a developer saying, "They are scanning a Python code, but getting feedback around Java code." While the remediation and guidelines are there, improvement is still required, e.g., you won't get the exact guidelines, but you can get some sort of a high-level insights."
"Sometimes the scans are not done quickly, but the solutions that it provides are really good. The quality is high, but the analysis is not done extremely quickly."
"The UI could be better. Also, there are some scenarios where there is no security flaw, but the report indicates that there is a security flaw. The report is not perfectly accurate. So, the accuracy of the scanning reports needs improvement."
"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."
"We tried to create an automatic scanning process for Veracode and integrate it into our billing process, but it was easier to adopt it to repositories based on GIT. Until now, our source control repository was Azure DevOps Server (Microsoft TFS) to managing our resources. This was not something that they supported. It took us some sessions together before we successfully implemented it."
"The pricing for qualified startups such as Neo4j could be improved."
"Another problem we have is that, while it is integrated with single sign-on—we are using Okta—the user interface is not great. That's especially true for a permanent link of a report of a page. If you access it, it goes to the normal login page that has nothing that says "Log in with single sign-on," unlike other software as a service that we use. It's quite bothersome because it means that we have to go to the Okta dashboard, find the Veracode link, and log in through it. Only at that point can we go to the permanent link of the page we wanted to access."
"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"They have to improve support."
"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Fortify Application Defender is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews while HCL AppScan is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 8 reviews. Fortify Application Defender is rated 8.0, while HCL AppScan is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Secure, versatile cyber security technology ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes "Improves application security, identifies gaps, and performs well". Fortify Application Defender is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Coverity, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx, Fortify WebInspect and Acunetix. See our Fortify Application Defender vs. HCL AppScan report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
