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

Fortify on Demand vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

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 on Demand
Ranking in Application Security Tools
15th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
13th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Application Security Tools
2nd
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
198
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (5th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Penetration Testing Services (4th), Static Code Analysis (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Fortify on Demand is 4.4%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 9.4%, down from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis
Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.
AkashKhurana - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to configure, stable, and good vulnerability detection
Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from being deployed into production is crucial. Typically, if a dependency we use has security issues or concerns, Veracode suggests upgrading to a more secure version. For example, if we're using a PayPal dependency with version 1.3 and it has a security bug, Veracode suggests upgrading to version 1.4 which fixes the issue. We usually make our project compatible with version 1.4, but sometimes Veracode recommends removing the dependent code altogether and adding the updated dependency from another repository. Veracode provides suggestions for resolving security issues and we implement them in our code after resolving any conflicts. We run the Veracode scan again and if it fails, we do not deploy the code to production. This is critical as it ensures that security issues such as bugs and fixes are addressed. Veracode consistently assists us in identifying security issues in third-party dependencies, while also ensuring the maintenance of code quality. Preventing security bugs and threats in our code improves the overall code quality of our company, which is essential given the significant concerns surrounding security today. Veracode's policy reporting is helpful for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. Veracode's solution plays a major role in achieving compliance, including HIPAA compliance. Without Veracode scans, identifying security threats and third-party dependencies would be a tedious task for DevOps professionals. Veracode provides visibility into the status of our application during every phase of development, including continuous integration and continuous development CI/CD pipeline stages. This includes builds, package creation for deployment, and various enrollment stages such as develop, queue, stage, above, and production enrollment. Prior to each stage, a Veracode scan is run. This can be accessed through Jenkins or the CI/CD pipeline by clicking on the Veracode scan option, which provides a detailed report highlighting any security issues and concerns. Veracode performs statistical analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, and manual penetration tests throughout our software development life cycle. Veracode scans not only for third-party security issues but also for possible issues in our own code. This occurs in every phase of development, including the SDLC. For example, if we use an encryption algorithm with a private or public key that is easy to decode, Veracode will identify this as an error or warning in the report and suggest using multiple layers of encryption for the keys. The entire CI/CD process is part of DevOps. Therefore, the responsibility of configuring the Veracode tool usually falls on the DevOps professional. It is essential to integrate Veracode with the CI/CD pipeline within the project to ensure it is always incorporated. Whenever there is a priority or mandatory check required before deployment, Veracode should run beforehand. This integration is carried out by our DevSecOps team. Veracode's false positive rate is good, as it helps us identify possible security concerns in our code. In my opinion, it is advisable to run a Veracode scan on all codes. I have worked in the IT industry for five years, and I have observed that Veracode has been implemented in every project I have worked on. If a tool is improving our code quality and providing us with insights into potential security issues, it is always beneficial to use it. The false positive rate boosts our developers' confidence in Veracode when addressing vulnerabilities. Veracode also provides suggestions when there is a security issue with a dependency in version 1.7, prompting us to consider using version 1.8, which does not have security issues. This process involves the developers, and it leaves a positive impression on our managers and clients, demonstrating our commitment to security. We can show them that we were previously using version 1.7 but updated to version 1.8 after identifying the security issue with Veracode's help. Unfortunately, there is no centralized platform to check for network issues or problems with dependencies and versions. Veracode provides a centralized solution where we can scan our project and receive results. Veracode has helped our organization address flaws in our software and automation processes. Its positive impact has been reflected in our ROI, which increased when we started using Veracode. Without Veracode, we would be susceptible to security issues and potential hacking. However, after implementing Veracode scans, we have not encountered any such problems. It is critical for us to use Veracode because we capture sensitive data such as pharmacy information for real-time users, including patient prescriptions and refill schedules. This sensitive data could pose a significant problem if our code or software has security vulnerabilities. Fortunately, Veracode scans allow us to prevent such issues. Veracode has helped our developers save time by providing a solution that eliminates the need to manually check for dependencies or search the internet for information on which dependencies have issues. Instead, Veracode provides a detailed report that identifies the issues and recommends the appropriate version to use. Using Veracode ensures the quality of our code and also saves time for our developers. In my career of five years, Veracode has helped me resolve code issues eight times. Veracode has reduced our SecOps costs by identifying security vulnerabilities in our code. Without Veracode, if we were to go live with these issues, it could result in a breach of our encrypted data, potentially causing significant harm to our organization. This would require significant time and cost to resolve the issue and restore the data. Veracode has improved the quality of our code and reduced the risk of such incidents occurring, thereby minimizing their impact on our organization.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."
"The user interface is good."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."
"The solution is very fast."
"The CI/CD integration is the most valuable feature of Veracode."
"It has improved the quality of code being delivered for test and its vulnerability resolutions timeline has improved."
"The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs."
"It's not "one policy fits all." I really like that Veracode allows me to set up specific policies that I can apply to applications."
"The analysis of the vulnerabilities and the results are the most valuable features."
"It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail."
"Static code scanning is the most valuable feature."
"The reporting being highly accurate is pretty cool. I use another product and I was always looking for answers as to what line, which part of the code, was wrong, and what to do about it. Veracode seems to have a solid database to look things up and a website to look things up."
 

Cons

"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."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"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."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages."
"Veracode is a little costly. It's cost-effective for a large enterprise, but it may be too expensive for small businesses."
"The runtime code analysis could be improved so that we can see every element in one place."
"Another thing I need is continued support for the new languages today that are popular. Most of them are scripting languages more so than real, fourth-generation, commercial grade stuff; we're evolving. Most applications are using so much open-source that, quite frankly, it would be great to see Veracode, or anybody else, extend their platform to where they are able to help secure open-source platforms or repositories."
"The solution could improve the Dynamic Analysis Security Testing(DAST)."
"They should improve on the static scanning time."
"If you schedule two parallel scans under the same project, one of them will be a failure."
"If the dynamic scan is improved, then the speed might go up. That is somehow not happening. We have raised this concern. It might also help if they could time limit scans to 24 hours instead of letting them go for three days. Then, whatever results could be shared, even if the scan is not complete, that would definitely help us."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis could improve."
"I don't have firsthand knowledge of Veracode pricing, but based on client feedback, it seems to be expensive with additional fees for certain features."
"Its complexity makes it quite expensive, but it’s all worth it, with all the engineering in the background."
"The pricing is fair. You get a lot out of the product."
"It's very expensive, especially when you are a very small organization. If you're using Veracode at an individual level, for example, you're a developer or you run agents, the pricing might not affect you, but if you're using it at a company level to troubleshoot security issues, the pricing is not quite favorable. It may affect ROI."
"I know that Veracode is a semi-pricey solution. If you are serious about security, I would recommend that you use an open-source option to learn how the scanning process works and then look into Veracode if you want to really step up your game and have an all-in-one solution."
"The solution is expensive."
"Compared to the typical software composition analysis solutions, Veracode is not so costly, although the static analysis part of it is a little costlier."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as passw...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode?
The SAST and DAST modules are great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode?
The product’s price is a bit higher compared to other solutions. However, the tool provides good vulnerability and database features. It is worth the money.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify on Demand vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.