Fortify WebInspect vs Synopsys Defensics comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Fortify WebInspect
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (8th)
Synopsys Defensics
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the market share of Fortify WebInspect is 44.0% and it increased by 9.3% compared to the previous year. The market share of Synopsys Defensics is 6.0% and it decreased by 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Unique Categories:
DevSecOps
15.5%
Fuzz Testing Tools
42.9%
 

Featured Reviews

Kibeom Kim - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 18, 2023
A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support
The installation phase of the product is slightly complex, making it not so easy. The product does not come in packaging, so one needs to install a database, after which one can install the product by activating the license and updating it whenever required. Fortify WebInspect has many processes involved in its installation phase compared to the other products in the market. Certain Korean products can be installed with just one step. I need to support my customers with the product's installation phase. The installation process takes a day or two to complete, but for some of my customers, it takes a month since they do not have any experience or knowledge about the product. The solution is deployed on-premises.
it_user586716 - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 15, 2017
Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false.
A security assurance engineer was able to perform due diligence across all network-facing protocols. My prior organization designed, developed and deployed a Network Attached Storage (NAS) appliance. A key part of the company wide security assurance program for all products, is to perform penetration testing against all network facing IP ports. For the web, SSL and RESTful APIs, there are very good COTS and open source tools to perform Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) testing. Unfortunately for NAS protocols like SMB, NFS, CIFS, and iSCSI, I researched and found that Codenomicon Defensics was the only viable source to satisfy our DAST requirements. Through the use of Selenium for automated web testing, it was easily found out that Codenomicon Defensics could be integrated into our Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI / CD) Agile processes, specific to automated testing. Also, like many of the other application security testing products, Defensics incorporates automatic update support and works on Windows, MacOS and Linux desktops.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Technical support has been good."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
 

Cons

"The scanner could be better."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"The initial setup was complex."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"This solution is very expensive."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"Licensing is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Government
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
24%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?
The solution's technical support was very helpful.
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environm...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aaron's
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Find out what your peers are saying about HCLTech, OpenText, Rapid7 and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: June 2024.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.