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

Coverity vs Fortify on Demand comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Coverity
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Fortify on Demand
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 8.5%, up from 7.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify on Demand is 5.1%, up from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers impressive reporting features with user-friendliness and high scalability
The solution can be easily setup but requires heavy integration due to the multiple types of port and programming languages involved. Comparing the resource requirements of the solution I would say it can be installed effortlessly. I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. A professional needs some pre-acquired knowledge to manage Coverity's deployment process, but the local solution partners provide support well enough for trouble-free deployment. The overall deployment process of Coverity took around two and a half hours in our organization. The deployment duration depends upon the operating system and resources including high-end RAM and CPU processors.
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

"It's very stable."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
 

Cons

"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"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."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Coverity is quite expensive."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"It is cost-effective."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
824,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
4%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
What do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
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

Synopsys Static Analysis
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity vs. Fortify on Demand and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.