We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and GitLab based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"The user interface is good."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"The solution is user-friendly. One feature I find very effective is the tool's automatic scanning capability. It scans replicas of the code developers write and automatically detects any vulnerabilities. The integration with CI/CD tools is also useful for plugins."
"I like GitLab's security and SAS tools."
"GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team."
"It's a great toolbox where the CI/CD pipeline is the fundamental component, but there are so many other features that you can pull from, which makes it a very powerful tool. My current client is using AWS, and they can, of course, use AWS CodePipeline, but GitLab is much more mature than that, and it also gives you the freedom to decide to go to another platform or have a multi-cloud strategy and things like that. That freedom for me is also very valuable."
"I like GitLab from the CI/CD perspective. It is much easier to set up CI/CD and then integrate with other tools."
"I like that you can use GitLab as a double-sided solution for both DevOps and version management. It's a good product for working in these two areas, and the user interface makes it easy to understand."
"The most valuable features of GitLab are the review, patch repo, and plans are in YAML."
"GitLab offers a good interface for doing code reviews between two colleagues."
"GitLab is a solution for source code management, container registry, pipelines, testing, and deployment."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"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."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"We'd like to see better integration with the Atlassian ecosystem."
"This solution could be improved by adding modifications such as slack notifications."
"The price of GitLab could improve, it is high."
"We'd always like to see better pricing on the product."
"I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five."
"I've noticed an area for improvement in GitLab, particularly needing to go through many steps to push the code to the repository. Resolving that issue would make the product better. My team quickly fixed it by writing a small script, then double-clicking or enabling the script to take care of the issue. However, that quick fix was from my team and not the GitLab team, so in the next release, if an automatic deployment feature would be available in GitLab, then that would be good because, in Visual Studio, you can do that with just one click of a button."
"The documentation could be improved to help newcomers better understand things like creating new branches."
"Perhaps the integration could be better."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while GitLab is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton. See our Fortify on Demand vs. GitLab report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
