We compared Fortify on Demand and SonarQube based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Fortify on Demand is praised for its robust security, comprehensive scanning capabilities, and prompt vulnerability reporting, with positive feedback on customer service and pricing. SonarQube stands out for its support for multiple languages, seamless integration, and comprehensive features, with exceptional customer service and positive feedback on pricing and ROI. Areas for improvement include enhancing performance and usability for Fortify on Demand, while SonarQube could focus on analysis speed, UI navigation, setup instructions, documentation, performance, and integration options.
Features: Fortify on Demand is highly appreciated for its robust security, comprehensive scanning capabilities, user-friendly interface, and timely vulnerability reporting. SonarQube stands out with its support for multiple languages, simplified design, integration with DevOps pipelines, and ability to detect vulnerabilities and code smells. Additionally, SonarQube offers configurability, flexibility, and a user-friendly interface.
Pricing and ROI: Fortify on Demand's users have found the setup costs to be manageable and appreciate the flexible licensing options. On the other hand, SonarQube's pricing is considered reasonable and competitive, and its setup cost is straightforward and easy. SonarQube also offers flexible licensing options to cater to different needs., Fortify on Demand users expressed satisfaction with the platform's effectiveness and value for their investment. SonarQube helped improve code quality, detect vulnerabilities, and ensure code compliance, resulting in cost savings and increased productivity.
Room for Improvement: Fortify on Demand could benefit from enhancements in performance, scanning capabilities, customization options, reporting features, and user interface. SonarQube should focus on improving analysis speed, user interface, setup instructions, documentation, performance, and integration options.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Fortify on Demand and SonarQube show that the duration required to establish a new tech solution can vary between users. While both products have similar timeframes mentioned by users, Fortify on Demand has a wider range of deployment and setup durations compared to SonarQube., Fortify on Demand's customer service is praised for its prompt and helpful assistance. Users appreciate the attentiveness and expertise of the support team. SonarQube also receives praise for its exceptional customer service and support, with users acknowledging the prompt and knowledgeable assistance provided. The support team is commended for their responsiveness and willingness to go above and beyond.
The summary above is based on 51 interviews we conducted recently with Fortify on Demand and SonarQube users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"The solution is very fast."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"We can create a Quality Gate in order to fail Jenkins jobs where the code coverage is lower than the set percentage."
"It's a great product. If you are in a hurry and just want to focus on the functional requirements of any kind of project, SonarQube is highly helpful. It enables the developers to code securely. SonarQube has a Community edition, which is open source and free. There are also three proprietary or paid versions: Enterprise edition, Data Center edition, and Developer edition."
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"We use this solution for qualitative coding. We make use of the SonarLint plugin as well as the dashboard."
"This has improved our organization because it has helped to find Security Vulnerabilities."
"One of the most valuable features of SonarQube is its ability to detect code quality during development. There are rules that define various technologies—Java, C#, Python, everything—and these rules declare the coding standards and code quality. With SonarQube, everything is detectable during the time of development and continuous integration, which is an advantage. SonarQube also has a Quality Gate, where the code should reach 85%. Below that, the code cannot be promoted to a further environment, it should be in a development environment only. So the checks are there, and SonarQube will provide that increase. It also provides suggestions on how the code can be fixed and methods of going about this, without allowing hackers to exploit the code. Another valuable feature is that it is tightly integrated with third-party tools. For example, we can see the SonarQube metrics in Bitbucket, the code repository. Once I raise the full request, the developer, team lead, or even the delivery lead can see the code quality metrics of the deliverable so that they can make a decision. SonarQube will also cover all of the top OWASP vulnerabilities, however it doesn't have penetration testing or hacker testing. We use other tools, like Checkmarx, to do penetration testing from the outside."
"It is very good at identifying technical debt."
"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"It would be highly beneficial if Fortify on Demand incorporated runtime analysis, similar to how Contrast Security utilizes agents for proactive application security."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise. In the next release, we need more reports and more analytic views for all the applications. There is no enterprise view in Fortify. I would like enterprise views and reports."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"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."
"We're in the process of figuring out how to automate the workflow for QA audit controls on it. I think that's perhaps an area that we could use some buffing. We're a Kubernetes shop, so there are some things that aren't direct fits, which we're struggling with on the component Docker side. But nothing major."
"From a reporting perspective, we sometimes have problems interpreting the vulnerability scan reports. For example, if it finds a possible threat, our analysts have to manually check the provided reports, and sometimes we have issues getting all the data needed to properly verify if it's accurate or not."
"There is need for support for the additional languages and ease of use in adding new rules for detecting issues."
"I have found this solution creates more noise than competitors."
"It would be better if SonarQube provided a good UI for external configuration."
"The product's user documentation can be vastly improved."
"It requires advanced heuristics to recognize more complex constructs that could be disregarded as issues."
"The BPM language is important and should be considered in SonarQube."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 108 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Fortify on Demand is most compared with Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and OWASP Zap. See our Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
