We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand and GitHub 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."Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The product has a very user-friendly interface and user-friendly security."
"The deployment is fast since we just have to run the script, and once it's done, it takes a few minutes."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"If you want to share documents, you can create articles and diagrams with GitHub and share."
"I use this solution to store my code in a repository so we can manage version control which is useful."
"We are finding GitHub is very stable."
"Even if I'm not in the office, I can access and work on my code from anywhere with my account credentials."
"GitHub allows us the option to push files from a non-UA method or directly upload files from the UA. You can integrate GitHub with Jenkins to do CI/CD."
"Reporting could be improved."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"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."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"It would be beneficial if GitHub provided some security scanning for new libraries to ensure that there are no viruses in it."
"If it had all of the end-to-end integration, then we probably wouldn't have any doubts about what we have installed. However, at this point, we're still trying to figure out how to use it end-to-end."
"GitHub needs to improve its UI."
"GitHub's issue management could be improved a little from an organization standpoint. It would be helpful to have the ability to organize a work board or a backlog more comprehensively. For organizations migrating to GitHub from arbitrary systems, it's a little bit of a headache to move on to that system."
"I think it would be valuable to have more security. Some of the data is very open to everyone."
"The security for this solution could be tightened up and improved."
"Our firewall was blocking cloning and downloading with SSH."
"We are not able to access GitHub from our VPN."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while GitHub is ranked 12th in Application Security Tools with 69 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while GitHub is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, AWS CodeCommit, Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and Checkmarx One. See our Fortify on Demand vs. GitHub 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.
