We performed a comparison between CodeSonar and Fortify Static Code Analyzer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Code Analysis solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"It has been able to scale."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"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."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"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."
"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."
"I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found. Fortify release updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer tells us if there are any security leaks or not. If there are, then it's notifying us and does not allow us to pass the DevOps pipeline. If it is finds everything's perfect, as per our given guidelines, then it is allowing us to go ahead and start it, and we are able to deploy it."
"Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."
"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."
"We've found the documentation to be very good."
"I like Fortify Software Security Center or Fortify SSC. This tool is installed on each developer's machine, but Fortify Software Security Center combines everything. We can meet there as security professionals and developers. The developers scan their code and publish the results there. We can then look at them from a security perspective and see whether they fixed the issues. We can agree on whether something is a false positive and make decisions."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"It was expensive."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"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."
"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."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"Streamlining the upgrade process and enhancing compatibility would make it easier for us to keep our security tools up-to-date."
"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."
"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."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"The product shows false positives for Python applications."
"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."
"The pricing is a bit high."
CodeSonar is ranked 5th in Static Code Analysis with 7 reviews while Fortify Static Code Analyzer is ranked 3rd in Static Code Analysis with 15 reviews. CodeSonar is rated 8.2, while Fortify Static Code Analyzer is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CodeSonar writes "Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Static Code Analyzer writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". CodeSonar is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, Polyspace Code Prover and Semgrep Code, whereas Fortify Static Code Analyzer is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode, Sonatype Lifecycle and Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis. See our CodeSonar vs. Fortify Static Code Analyzer report.
See our list of best Static Code Analysis vendors.
We monitor all Static Code Analysis 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.