We performed a comparison between Checkmarx and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The two solutions are very comparable. All categories received similar ratings except that Checkmarx got better rewviews on deployment and support.
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"It has all the features we need."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"
"The licensing was good."
"The user interface is good."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"It improves future security scans."
"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."
"It is an expensive solution."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"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."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". 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 ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Snyk, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk. See our Checkmarx One 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.