We performed a comparison between MicroFocus Fortify on Demand and Veracode based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Veracode nudges ahead of Microfocus Fortify on Demand in this comparison. Veracode users feel the solution enables them to analyze every security flaw, discrepancy, and vulnerability, and feel the reporting is very concise. Microfocus can be very taxing on resources and can potentially slow processes down considerably.
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"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."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"We like the fact that all the issues are identified and that Veracode provides sufficient information on how to resolve them."
"It eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report."
"The most valuable feature is the remediation consulting that they give. I feel like any vendor can identify the flaws but fixing the flaws is what is most important. Being able to have those consultation calls, schedule them in the platform, and have that discussion with an applications expert, that process scales well and that is what has allowed a lot more reduction of risk to happen."
"It has caught lots of flaws that could have been exploited, like SQL injection flaws. It has also improved developer engagement with information security."
"The user interface is quick, familiar, and user-friendly and makes navigation to other software very easy."
"I believe the static analysis is Veracode's best and most valuable feature. Software composition analysis is a feature that most people don't use, and we don't use SCA for most of our applications. However, this is an essential feature because it provides insight into the third-party libraries we use."
"Allows us to track the remediation and handling of identified vulnerabilities."
"It does software composition analysis, discovering open source software weaknesses."
"It would be highly beneficial if Fortify on Demand incorporated runtime analysis, similar to how Contrast Security utilizes agents for proactive application security."
"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."
"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."
"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"I'd like to see more development tools and platforms integrated together with Veracode to amplify the solution's effectiveness."
"It does nearly everything, but penetration testing."
"The security labs integration has room for improvement."
"They should improve on the static scanning time."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"While Veracode is way ahead of its competitors on Gartner Magic Quadrant, it's a bit more expensive than Fortify. It's a good solution for the cost, but if we had a high budget, we would go with Checkmarx, which is much better than Veracode."
"I would like to see these features: entering comments for internal tracking; entering a priority; reports that show the above."
"The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, OWASP Zap and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Fortify on Demand vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
