We performed a comparison between Fortify Application Defender and Klocwork 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 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."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"It's integrated into our CI, continuous integration."
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"Technical support is quite good."
"The reporting helps us understand the trend of our results and whether we improve over time. We can see the history within Klocwork's server architecture and know that we're making things better. It creates a great story for our management. We can demonstrate value and how our software is developing over time."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"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."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"We bought Klocwork, but it was limited to one little program, but the program is now sort of failing. So, we have a license for usage on a program that is sort of failing, and we really can't use the license on anything else."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"What needs improvement in Klocwork, compared to other products in the market, is the dashboard or reporting mechanisms that need to be a bit more flexible. The Klocwork dashboard could be improved. Though it's good, it's not as good as some of the other products in the market, which is a problem. The reporting could be more detailed and easier to sort out because sorting in Klocwork could be a bit more time-consuming, mainly when sorting defects based on filters, compared to how it's done on other tools such as Coverity."
"Now the only issue we have is that whenever we need to get the code we have to build it first. Then we can get the report."
Fortify Application Defender is ranked 34th in Application Security Tools with 9 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 19th in Application Security Tools with 20 reviews. Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8, while Klocwork is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Reliable solution with excellent machine learning algorithms but expensive and lacking support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Checkmarx, Coverity, SonarQube, CAST Application Intelligence Platform and Fortify on Demand, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar and Checkmarx. See our Fortify Application Defender vs. Klocwork 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.