We performed a comparison between Fortify Static Code Analyzer and PyCharm based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Code Analysis solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like password credentials and access keys embedded in the code."
"We've found the documentation to be very good."
"I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found. Fortify release updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer tells us if there are any security leaks or not. If there are, then it's notifying us and does not allow us to pass the DevOps pipeline. If it is finds everything's perfect, as per our given guidelines, then it is allowing us to go ahead and start it, and we are able to deploy it."
"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."
"The solution has a great debugging feature."
"The recent AI-powered code completion is pretty cool."
"It is an excellent, fully integrated IDE with smart code analysis capability and a built-in debugger. It is a fantastic tool."
"The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone."
"The best feature of PyCharm is that it gives you hints whenever it detects any issues while you are coding. This is important because it helps us code faster and without any errors."
"The product's IDE feature is quite user-friendly."
"Good syntax highlighting and very it's very customizable."
"The solution has a nice environment and extensions that make it easy to develop software."
"The price can be improved."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer has a bit of a learning curve, and I don't find it particularly helpful in narrowing down the vulnerabilities we should prioritize."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"Their licensing is expensive."
"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."
"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."
"The solution does not support some features of OpenCV even though it is part of a PyCharm package."
"Notebooks in PyCharm is not as intuitive as it could be."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
"There is room for improvement in memory usage. It uses too much memory. It can get a bit heavy, especially when you have too many open files and the system becomes very slow."
"The user interface and overall user experience could be more intuitive to make it easier for users to navigate and utilize the software effectively."
"PyCharm's use of system resources can get pretty heavy. Loading, in particular, takes longer than I would like and I think they should optimize it so that it's a bit lighter on the system."
"They should improve the product's interactiveness."
"The navigation can be better."
Fortify Static Code Analyzer is ranked 2nd in Static Code Analysis with 13 reviews while PyCharm is ranked 7th in Static Code Analysis with 8 reviews. Fortify Static Code Analyzer is rated 8.4, while PyCharm is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify Static Code Analyzer writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PyCharm writes "Convenient to use and surely increases the effectiveness of software development". Fortify Static Code Analyzer is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode, Sonatype Lifecycle and Kiuwan Insights, whereas PyCharm is most compared with . See our Fortify Static Code Analyzer vs. PyCharm report.
See our list of best Static Code Analysis vendors.
We monitor all Static Code Analysis 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.
