Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Fortify Software Security Center vs GitGuardian Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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 Software Security C...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
26th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
GitGuardian Platform
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
5th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (7th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Software Supply Chain Security (4th), DevSecOps (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Comprehensive vulnerability analysis and customization features with decent pricing
Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances. WebInspect supports a number of APIs and web endpoints. I find its feature of macro recording allows for testing vulnerabilities during multi-factor authentication sessions very valuable. I appreciate the ability to further analyze data with tools like Audit Workbench.
Joan Ging - PeerSpot reviewer
It dramatically improved our ability to detect secrets, saved us time, and reduced our mean time to remediation
While they do offer some basic reporting, more comprehensive reporting would be beneficial in the long run. This would allow me to demonstrate the value of the product over time to continue to effectively budget for this subscription, especially as they add features that may come at an additional cost. I appreciate the improvements made to reporting over the past year, but continued development in this area will be appreciated. We have encountered occasional difficulties with the Single Sign-On process. There is room for improvement in its current implementation. It works, but was not quite as smooth as the rest of the GitGuardian experience.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."
"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the general incident reporting system."
"GitGuardian Internal Monitoring has helped increase our secrets detection rate by several orders of magnitude. This is a hard metric to get. For example, if we knew what our secrets were and where they were, we wouldn't need GitGuardian or these types of solutions. There could be a million more secrets that GitGuardian doesn't detect, but it is basically impossible to find them by searching for them."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to automate both downloading the repository and generating a Software Bill of Materials directly from it."
"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."
"It actually creates an incident ticket for us. We can now go end-to-end after a secret has been identified, to track down who owns the repository and who is responsible for cleaning it up."
"The most valuable feature is the alerts when secrets are leaked and we can look at particular repositories to see if there are any outstanding problems. In addition, the solution's detection capabilities seem very broad. We have no concerns there."
"The entire GitGuardian solution is valuable. The product is doing its job and showing us many things. We get many false positives, but the ability to automatically display potential leaks when developers commit is valuable. The dashboards show you recent and historical commits, and we have a full scan that shows historical leaked secrets."
"There is quite a lot to like. Its user interface is fantastic, and being able to sort the incidents by whether they are valid or for a certain repository or a certain user has been very beneficial in helping investigate what has been found."
 

Cons

"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."
"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."
"It could be easier. They have a CLI tool that engineers can run on their laptops, but getting engineers to install the tool is a manual process. I would like to see them have it integrated into one of those developer tools, e.g., VS Code or JetBrains, so developers don't have to think about it."
"It took us a while to get new patterns introduced into the pattern reporting process."
"They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers."
"Automated Jira tickets would be fantastic. At the moment, I believe we have to go in and click to create a Jira ticket. It would be nice to automate."
"An area for improvement is the front end for incidents. The user experience in this area could be much better."
"One of our current challenges is that the GitGuardian platform identifies encrypted secrets and statements as sensitive information even though they're secured."
"The purchasing process is convoluted compared to Snyk, the other tool we use. It's like night and day because you only need to punch in your credit card, and you're set. With GitGuardian, getting a quote took two or three weeks. We paid for it in December but have not settled that payment yet."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."
"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."
"The solution is priced fair."
"With GitGuardian, we didn't need any middlemen."
"The pricing for GitGuardian is fair."
"It could be cheaper. When GitHub secrets monitoring solution goes to general access and general availability, GitGuardian might be in a little bit of trouble from the competition, and maybe then they might lower their prices. The GitGuardian solution is great. I'm just concerned that they're not GitHub."
"GitGuardian is on the pricier side."
"The pricing is reasonable. GitGuardian is one of the most recent security tools we've adopted. When it came time to renew it, there was no doubt about it. It is licensed per developer, so it scales nicely with the number of repos that we have. We can create new repositories and break up work. It isn't scaling based on the amount of data it's consuming."
"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."
"We don't have a huge number of users, but its yearly rate was quite reasonable when compared to other per-seat solutions that we looked at... Having a free plan for a small number of users was really great. If you're a small team, I don't see why you wouldn't want to get started with it."
"The internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
22%
Government
13%
Media Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus Software Security Center?
You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
In the beginning, it was difficult for me to verify that our usage of Fortify Software Security Center corresponded to the license and criteria. Now, we have negotiated a number of details to respe...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?
I would like the false positive issue to diminish. I have experienced a lot of false positives, but I think this is due to using an older version. I hope the new version will resolve my problem.
What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...
What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
We'd like to request a new GitGuardian feature that automates user onboarding and access control for code repositories. Ideally, when a user contributes to a repository, they would be automatically...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect
GitGuardian Internal Monitoring
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon
Automox, 66degrees (ex Cloudbakers), Iress, Now:Pensions, Payfit, Orange, BouyguesTelecom, Seequent, Stedi, Talend, Snowflake... 
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Software Security Center vs. GitGuardian Platform and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.