We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and Parasoft SOAtest 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."It improves future security scans."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The solution is very fast."
"The installation was easy."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Technical support is helpful."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 9th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 56 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 30 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Veracode. See our Fortify on Demand vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
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.