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

CodeSonar vs Fortify on Demand comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

CodeSonar
Ranking in Application Security Tools
32nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Static Code Analysis (8th)
Fortify on Demand
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify on Demand is 4.9%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY - PeerSpot reviewer
Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand
This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."
"It has been able to scale."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"The solution is very fast."
"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."
 

Cons

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"It was expensive."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"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."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."
"Pricing is a bit costly."
"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."
"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."
"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
27%
Computer Software Company
13%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CodeSonar?
CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CodeSonar?
The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools. I rate its pricing a four out of ten.
What needs improvement with CodeSonar?
Our license model allows one user per license. Currently, we have limitations for VPN profiles. We can’t share the key with other users. There could be a shared licensing model for the users. It wi...
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?
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about CodeSonar vs. Fortify on Demand and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.