Fortify Application Defender vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

OpenText and MathWorks are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. OpenText is ranked #24 with an average rating of 8.0, while MathWorks is ranked #26 with an average rating of 6.3. OpenText holds a 1.1% mindshare in AS, compared to MathWorks’s 1.4% mindshare. Additionally, 81% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 85% of MathWorks users who would recommend it.

Fortify Application Defender

Read 11 Fortify Application Defender reviews

1,378 Views
1,116 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

Polyspace Code Prover

Read 7 Polyspace Code Prover reviews

2,329 Views
1,677 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Fortify Application Defender

Polyspace Code Prover

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Fortify Application Defender and Polyspace Code Prover compete in application security solutions. Fortify is praised for effectiveness, while Polyspace offers robust features, making it the choice for comprehensive solutions.

Features: Fortify Application Defender is known for real-time threat detection, easy integration into existing systems, and rapid identification of vulnerabilities. Polyspace Code Prover specializes in static analysis, providing detailed code logic insights and addressing potential issues. Polyspace users favor thorough code examination.

Room for Improvement: Fortify users desire more detailed reporting features, enhanced customization options, and tailored scans for specific needs. Polyspace users indicate a need for better documentation, more intuitive user guidance, and improvements for user-friendliness and comprehensiveness.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Fortify Application Defender is regarded as easier to deploy, with praise for its responsive customer service and simple setup process. Polyspace Code Prover, although feature-rich, is criticized for complex deployment and less supportive customer service, making Fortify preferable for deployment and customer engagement.

Pricing and ROI: Fortify Application Defender offers competitive pricing and satisfactory ROI aligning well with the value delivered. Polyspace Code Prover, despite higher cost, is viewed as a worthwhile investment due to advanced capabilities, suited for demanding development environments where value prioritizes over costs.

To learn more, read our detailed Fortify Application Defender vs. Polyspace Code Prover Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Fortify Application Defender vs. Polyspace Code Prover

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,853 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Fortify Application Defender

Ranking in Application Security Tools

24th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

26th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Fortify Application Defender is 1.1%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.4%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Fortify Application Defender	1.1%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.4%
Other	97.5%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

VinothSivam

CTO at Abcl

Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. However, I'm concerned about how it handles an increasing number of lines of code. As the complexity grows, so does the time it takes for the tool to review everything. I want more clarity on how Fortify Application Defender handles multiple threats. We have numerous endpoints, but the tool runs in our pipeline, meaning it operates in the cloud. All our code is configured there, and the tool runs integration testing, unit testing, user testing, and final production code tests. It's a day-to-day experience. It's utilized almost every day as part of our pipeline runs. Each team responsible for integration testing, human testing, user access testing, and preproduction testing runs it whenever they take a build.

Read full review

reviewer2760282

General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification

Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."

"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."

"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."

"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."

"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."

"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."

"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."

More Fortify Application Defender pros

"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."

"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."

"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."

"The product detects memory corruptions."

"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."

"The outputs are very reliable."

Cons

"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."

"The licensing can be a little complex."

"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."

"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."

"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."

"The solution is quite expensive."

"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."

"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."

More Fortify Application Defender cons

"The tool has some stability issues."

"Automation could be a challenge."

"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."

"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."

"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."

"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."

"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten. It comes as an annual cloud subscription. The tool's pricing is around 50 lakhs."

"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."

"The product’s price is much higher than other tools."

"The price of this solution could be less expensive."

"We use the paid version."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Government

Manufacturing Company

39%

Computer Software Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify Application Defender?

I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify Application Defender?

The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify Application Defender?

We use the solution for fast code review. It is integrated into our DevOps pipeline.

See all answers

What do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?

When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts,...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polyspace Code Prover?

We use the paid version.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

See all answers

Comparisons

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 16% of the time

SonarQube vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 10% of the time

Coverity Static vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 8% of the time

Klocwork vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 6% of the time

CAST Application Intelligence Platform vs Fortify Application Defender

Compared 6% of the time

More Fortify Application Defender Competitors

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 25% of the time

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 19% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 15% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 6% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

January 2026

Download Fortify Application Defender product report

Buyer's Guide

Polyspace Code Prover

December 2025

Download Polyspace Code Prover product report

Also Known As

HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender

No data available

Overview

Micro Focus Security Fortify Application Defender is a runtime application self-protection (RASP) solution that helps you manage and mitigate risk from homegrown or third-party applications. It provides centralized visibility into application use and abuse while protecting from software vulnerability exploits and other violations in real time.

OpenText

Polyspace Code Prover is a sound static analysis tool that proves the absence of overflow, divide-by-zero, out-of-bounds array access, and certain other run-time errors in C and C++ source code. It produces results without requiring program execution, code instrumentation, or test cases. Polyspace Code Prover uses semantic analysis and abstract interpretation based on formal methods to verify software interprocedural, control, and data flow behavior. You can use it on handwritten code, generated code, or a combination of the two. Each operation is color-coded to indicate whether it is free of run-time errors, proven to fail, unreachable, or unproven.

MathWorks

Sample Customers

ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP

Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center

Buyer's Guide

Fortify Application Defender vs. Polyspace Code Prover

December 2025

Free Report: Fortify Application Defender vs. Polyspace Code Prover

Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Application Defender vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Fortify Application Defender vs. Polyspace Code Prover 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.