"The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months."
"It's comprehensive from a feature standpoint."
"There is a single area on the dashboard where you can get a full view of all of the tests and the results from everything. There is a nice, very simple graphic that shows you the types of vulnerabilities that were found, their severity, the scoring, and in what part of the code they were found. All the details are together in one place."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"The most valuable features are that you can do static analysis and dynamic analysis on a scheduled basis and that you can push the findings into JIRA."
"Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution."
"Another feature of Veracode is that they provide e-learning, but the e-learning is not basic, rather it is quite advanced... in the e-learning you can check into best practices for developing code and how to prevent improper management of some component of the code that could lead to a vulnerability. The e-learning that Veracode provides is an extremely good tool."
"Their dashboard is really good, overall. In my opinion, it's one of the best in the market, and I say that because we have used other service providers."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"Some of the most valuable features have been the latest up-to-date of the OWASP, the monitoring, the reporting, and the ease of use with the IDE plugins, in terms of integration."
"The most valuable features are the analysis and detection of issues within the application code."
"SonarQube is one of the more popular solutions because it supports 29 languages."
"The static code analysis of the solution is the most important aspect for us. When it comes to security breaches within the code, we can leverage some rules to allow us to identify the repetition in our code and the possible targets that we may have. It makes it very easy to review our code for security purposes."
"The fact that the solution does security scanning is valuable."
"Before you even compile, it can catch known vulnerability issues or patterns."
"The solution can verify vulnerabilities, code smells, and hotspots. It makes the software more secure and it helps make a junior or novice developer sharper."
"The solution has a wide variety of features and an open-source community that you are able to learn Java, JavaScript, or any other programing language."
"The triage indicator was kind of hard to find. It's a very small arrow and I had no idea it was there."
"I would ask Veracode to be a lot more engaged with the customer and set up live sessions where they force the customer to engage with Veracode's technical team. Veracode could show them a repo, how they should do things, this is what these results mean, here is a dashboard, here's the interpretation, here's where you find the results."
"Sometimes the scans are not done quickly, but the solutions that it provides are really good. The quality is high, but the analysis is not done extremely quickly."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"The feature that allows me to read which mitigation answer was submitted, and to approve it, requires me to use do so in different screens. That makes it a little bit more complicated because I have to read and then I have to go back and make sure it falls under the same number ID number. That part is a little bit complicated from my perspective, because that's what I use the most."
"The pricing for qualified startups such as Neo4j could be improved."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"There is much to be desired of UI and user experience. The UI is very slow. With every click, it just takes a lot of time for the pages to load. We have seen this consistently since getting this solution. The UI and UX are very disjointed."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent. When we are coding the endpoint it will not work, we have to use Windows Agent. This is something they could improve."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"Reporting could be improved."
"The reporting can be improved."
"Dynamic scanning is missing and there are some issues with security scanning."
"The software testing tool capability could improve. It does not always integrate well. You have to use a specific plugin and the plugin does not always go in Apple's applications."
"A little bit more emphasis on security and a bit more security scanning features would be nice."
"If you don't have any experience with the configuration or how to configure the files, it can be complicated."
"One thing to improve would be the integration. There is a steep learning curve to get it integrated."
"I like that it has a better dashboard compared to Clockwork. It's also stable."
"The solution could improve by providing more advanced technologies."
More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Pricing and Cost Advice →
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 7th in Application Security with 13 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security with 52 reviews. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand writes "Makes it easy to discover hidden vulnerabilities in our open source libraries". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Good integration and has useful feedback features, such as Quality Gate ". Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is most compared with Checkmarx, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan and Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx, Coverity, Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle, WhiteSource and Snyk. See our Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security vendors.
We monitor all Application Security 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.
