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

Fortify Static Code Analyzer vs PyCharm comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 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 Static Code Analyzer
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PyCharm
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
6th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of Fortify Static Code Analyzer is 11.9%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PyCharm is 0.3%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Code Analysis
 

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides extensive language support and enhances secure coding practices
The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified. It should be easier to install, perhaps through a container-based approach where everything is combined into one image or pack of containers. This change would facilitate easier installations and ensure all necessary components are connected and ready to use.
Srujan Panuganti - PeerSpot reviewer
Convenient to use and surely increases the effectiveness of software development
The solution does not support some features of OpenCV even though it is part of a PyCharm package. Open CV is used to develop software that involves computer vision tasks. It seems the solution is not fully updated to use the latest PyCharm packages. I would like even more support toward robotics-related software tools. For example, support of ROS, ROS 1, and ROS 2 development would ensure that I continue to use the solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines."
"Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."
"The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful."
"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."
"The Software Security Center, which is often overlooked, stands out as the most effective feature."
"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."
"Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like password credentials and access keys embedded in the code."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"The best feature of PyCharm is that it gives you hints whenever it detects any issues while you are coding. This is important because it helps us code faster and without any errors."
"The solution has a great debugging feature."
"The product's IDE feature is quite user-friendly."
"PyCharm has an excellent user experience, and I appreciate its cross-platform capabilities."
"The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone."
"The recent AI-powered code completion is pretty cool."
"The solution has a nice environment and extensions that make it easy to develop software."
"Good syntax highlighting and very it's very customizable."
 

Cons

"The product shows false positives for Python applications."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"It can be tricky if you want to exclude some files from scanning. For instance, if you do not want to scan and push testing files to Fortify Software Security Center, that is tricky with some IDEs, such as IntelliJ. We found that there is an Exclude feature that is not working. We reported that to them for future fixing. It needs some work on the plugins to make them consistent across IDEs and make them easier."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer has a bit of a learning curve, and I don't find it particularly helpful in narrowing down the vulnerabilities we should prioritize."
"They should improve the product's interactiveness."
"There is room for improvement in memory usage. It uses too much memory. It can get a bit heavy, especially when you have too many open files and the system becomes very slow."
"The solution is heavy because running it on laptops consumes a lot of memory and power. Typically, a laptop battery might last about eight to nine hours, but with the tool running, it reduces to two hours or one and a half hours at most. It is designed to handle large projects and heavy tasks, making it resource-intensive. For smaller projects, use IDEs like Visual Studio Code."
"Notebooks in PyCharm is not as intuitive as it could be."
"One issue with JetBrains tools, including PyCharm, is their heavy resource usage. They can be slow to start, especially when beginning a new project, as it takes some time to index."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
"The user interface and overall user experience could be more intuitive to make it easier for users to navigate and utilize the software effectively."
"Customizing the tool can make it complicated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."
"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."
"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."
"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."
"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."
"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."
"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."
"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."
"The community edition is free and the professional edition has a licensing fee."
"I don't have much info on the pricing, but I would say it is somewhat competitive."
"They have a free Community edition, and they also have a licensed version. They definitely have an annual license. They probably also have a monthly license. Its pricing is good and reasonable. It is a little bit more expensive than the others, but it is well worth it. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"I use the free community version, so I'm saving money there."
"The community edition is free, which is good."
"The price is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
29%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like pa...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
The pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer is good, with a flexible model that allows customers to choose a setup that suits their needs. There are some features that require additional purchases,...
What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified. It should be easier to install, perhaps through a container-based approach where everything is combined into one image or pack...
What do you like most about PyCharm?
The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone.
What needs improvement with PyCharm?
One issue with JetBrains tools, including PyCharm, is their heavy resource usage. They can be slow to start, especially when beginning a new project, as it takes some time to index.
What is your primary use case for PyCharm?
I have used PyCharm ( /products/pycharm-reviews ) to write quantitative libraries, data manipulation tools, Django back-end applications, and microservices.
 

Also Known As

Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Static Code Analyzer vs. PyCharm and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.