We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Fortify on Demand 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."For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The solution is highly stable."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"The user interface is good."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"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."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"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."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Fortify on Demand 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.
