We performed a comparison between Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode 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 integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"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."
"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."
"Its flexibility is most valuable. It is such a flexible tool. It can be implemented in a number of ways. It can do anything you want it to do. It can be fully automated within a DevOps pipeline. It can also be used in an ad hoc, special test case scenario and anywhere in between."
"The Software Security Center, which is often overlooked, stands out as the most effective feature."
"Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."
"One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important."
"It provides security of different Shadow IT activities in our environment, especially around application development and website hosting."
"I like the way the flaws are reported in the system."
"Veracode's integration with our continuous integration solution is what I've found to be the most valuable feature. It is easy to connect the two and to run scans in an automated way without needing as much manual intervention."
"The most valuable features of Veracode Static Analysis are its ability to work with GitLab and GitHub so that you can do the reviews and force the code."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"Veracode has a nice API that they provide to allow for custom things to be built, or automation. We actually have integrated Veracode into our software development cycle using their API. We actually are able to automatically, every time a new build of a software is completed, submit that application, kick off a scan, and we get results in a much more automated fashion."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its extensive reporting capabilities and user-friendly interface."
"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."
"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."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
"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."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"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 product shows false positives for Python applications."
"Veracode's SAST, DAST, and SCA are pretty good with respect to industry standards, but with regard to container security, they are in either beta or alpha testing. They need to get that particular feature up and running so that they take care of the container security part."
"The solution does not support Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"We have some constraints interacting with Veracode self-support. I'm not talking about their technical support. I'm talking about self-support. We sometimes have a hard time communicating with them."
"The scans were sometimes not accurate in version 2022. There were some false positives in the vulnerability reports. We used to get false positives, and we were responsible for checking all of the alerts and determining whether they were true positives or false positives. They might have already improved it. If they have not, they can look into how to mitigate false positives."
"It's problematic if you want to integrate it with your pipelines because the documentation is not so well written and it's full of typos. It is not presented in a structured way. It does not say, "If you want to achieve this particular thing, you have to do steps 1, 2, and 3." Instead, it contains bits of information in different parts, and you have to read everything and then understand the big picture."
"I do expect large applications with millions of lines of code to take a while, but it would be nice if there was a possibility to be able to have a baseline initial scan. I know that Veracode touts that there are Pipeline Scans that are supposed to take 90 seconds or less, and we've tried to do that ourselves with our ERP application. However, it actually times out after two hours of scanning. If the static scan itself or another option to run a lower tier scan can be integrated earlier on into our SDLC, it would be great. Right now, it takes so long that we usually leave it till a bit later in the cycle, whereas if it ran faster, we could push it to the time when a developer will be checking in code. That would make us feel a lot more confident that we'd be able to catch things almost instantaneously."
"The only areas that I'm concerned with are some of the newer code libraries, things that we're starting to see people dabble with. They move quickly enough to get them into the Analysis Engine, so I wouldn't even say it is a complaint. It is probably the only thing I worry about: Occasionally hitting something that is built in some other obscure development model, where we either can't scan it or can't scan it very well."
"The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted."
Fortify Static Code Analyzer is ranked 3rd in Static Code Analysis with 13 reviews while Veracode is ranked 1st in Static Code Analysis with 194 reviews. Fortify Static Code Analyzer is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify Static Code Analyzer writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Fortify Static Code Analyzer is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Sonatype Lifecycle, GitLab and Mend.io, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Fortify Static Code Analyzer vs. Veracode 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.
