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."Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 57 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.
