We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Fortify Application Defender based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify Application Defender is ranked 30th in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and SonarCloud, whereas Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Coverity, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, SonarQube, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand. See our Checkmarx One vs. Fortify Application Defender report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
Fewer false positives with CX than Fortify. More integrated.
Looking at the Gartner report I would say that Checkmarx is way easier to set up (initial setup) compared to Micro Focus Fortify.
Also, the financial strength of the Micro Focus Fortify spin/merger is a concern so investments could be at risk.
The major difference is that Checkmarx scans the code without compiling the code. This has a great advantage as code building issues are eliminated,
scan time is very less and false positive is less to some extent. One more major this is Checkmarx learns as you eliminate false positives and does not show the same issue again. We can perform incremental scans on the codebase where the old issue is nicely marked as "Recurring" and new ones in Red as NEW. Checkmarx has a highly customizable filter creation where you can create a filter that can eliminate the common recurring issues in
scans. This feature is very flexible and you can write your own filters and also, write specific patterns that are found in manual review which is a
great help as coding styles differ form teams to teams.
Thanks a lot. Thank you for the information.