We performed a comparison between Fortify Application Defender and SonarQube 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."The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"I like that it has a better dashboard compared to Clockwork. It's also stable."
"Issue Explanations: Documentation with detailed samples. Helps in growing technical knowledge and re-writing logic to conforming solutions."
"The stability is good."
"Some of the most valuable features have been the latest up-to-date of the OWASP, the monitoring, the reporting, and the ease of use with the IDE plugins, in terms of integration."
"Code Convention: Using the tool to implement some sort of coding convention is really useful and ensures that the code is consistent no matter how many contributors."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"We advise all of our developers to have this solution in place."
"If code coverage is a low number then that's of great value to me."
"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"I would like to see dynamic code analysis in the next version of the software."
"The scanning part could be improved in SonarQube. We have used Coverity for scanning, and we have the critical issues reported by Coverity. When we used SonarQube for scanning and looked at the results, it seems that some of them have incorrect input. This part can be improved for C and C++ languages."
"We had some issues where the Quality Gate check sometimes gets stuck and it is unclear."
"If I configure a project in SonarQube, it generates a token. When we're compiling our code with SonarQube, we have to provide the token for security reasons. If IP-based connectivity is established with the solution, the project should automatically be populated without providing any additional token. It will be easy to provide just the IP address. It currently supports this functionality, but it makes a different branch in the project dashboard. From the configuration and dashboard point of view, it should have some transformations. There can be dashboard integration so that we can configure the dashboard for different purposes."
"The exporting capabilities could be improved. Currently, exporting is fully dependent on the SonarQube environment."
"New plug-ins should be integrated into SonarCloud to give more flexibility to the product."
"We found a solution with dynamic testing, and are looking to find a solution that can be used for both types of testing."
"The learning curve can be fairly steep at first, but then, it's not an entry-level type of application. It's not like an introduction to C programming. You should know not just C programming and how to make projects but also how to apply its findings to the bigger picture. I've had users who said that they wish it was easier to understand how to configure, but I don't know if that's doable because what it's doing is a very complicated thing. I don't know if it is possible to make a complicated thing trivially simple."
Fortify Application Defender is ranked 30th in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Checkmarx One, Coverity, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Fortify Application Defender vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
