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

Fortify on Demand vs Polyspace Code Prover 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

Fortify on Demand
Ranking in Application Security Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Ranking in Application Security Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Fortify on Demand is 4.5%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.2%, up from 0.8% 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.
Pradeep Panchakarla - PeerSpot reviewer
A reliable solution that provides excellent features and detects memory corruption
The run time analysis process must be improved. If we do not run with the main loop, it generates its own main and doesn’t allow developers to modify the execution sequences. The solution must provide more flexibility to the developers to manipulate the runtime analysis tools. The developer must be allowed to modify the main sequence. It will be very easy for them to test their use cases. Otherwise, Polyspace generates a random main file and executes all the functions randomly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"The licensing was good."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
 

Cons

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."
"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"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."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
39%
Computer Software Company
12%
Transportation Company
4%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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...
What do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?
When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts,...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation. It require support. There could be an issue with range propag...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify on Demand vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.