Fortify by OpenText vs. SonarQube Server

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Fortify by OpenText
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
An AppSec solution formerly from Micro Focus, spanning SCA, SAST and DAST that supports the breadth and management of any application portfolio, used to secure code. Features API discovery and testing for any application, throughout the software lifecycle.N/A
SonarQube Server
Score 9.5 out of 10
N/A
SonarQube is a code quality and vulnerability solution for development teams that integrates with CI/CD pipelines to ensure the software you produce is secure, reliable, and maintainable.
$720
per year per installation
Pricing
Fortify by OpenTextSonarQube Server
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Community
Free
Developer EDITION
starting at $720
per year per installation
Enterprise EDITION
Contact sales for pricing
per year per installation
Data Center EDITION
Contact sales for pricing
per year per installation
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Fortify by OpenTextSonarQube Server
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Fortify by OpenTextSonarQube Server
Considered Both Products
Fortify by OpenText
Chose Fortify by OpenText
When compared to Insight Appsec, Focus Fortify WebInspect performs better in terms of speed, integration, and detection capabilities. The variety of vulnerabilities it detected as being against Insight Appsec is what I appreciated the most. In addition to detecting …
Chose Fortify by OpenText
Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect is better when it comes to speed, integration and detection capabilities as compared to Insight Appsec. What I loved the most is the broad coverage of vulnerabilities it identified as against Insight Appsec. Apart from detection capabilities the …
Chose Fortify by OpenText
  • Veracode is the product I've used that is most similar to Fortify WebInspect. They both do a good job at reporting code vulnerabilities and both allow for good automation.
  • SonarQube can be a free tool, but does a much better job at finding bugs that aren't necessarily …
Chose Fortify by OpenText
Fortify Application Defender is a little more timely and upfront with a lot of their information on cyber security. we like what they provide and how they communicate with our users. I think they have a good understanding and practice in their field. they seem best suited for …
Chose Fortify by OpenText
CAST in my opinion provides a far superior product in that it can parse in an entire suite of applications and do scans across modules. HP Fortify probably has deeper and more current scanning so I think both products complement each other. I would not rely solely on …
SonarQube Server
Chose SonarQube Server
Some are still under consideration. Pricing is a big component. Some FOSS products have been considered is at par (at least for our needs) or catching up. Although the amazing support in the community weighs hard on the value. So, if it went away...so would some arguments …
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube is more focused on code quality, whereas Veracode does a better job of finding security vulnerabilities. We lean towards SonarQube because we are looking for quality.
Chose SonarQube Server
Jenkins and Gitlab are not exact alternatives for SonarQube, however, they do provide functionality for running and executing build pipelines for various languages and generating reports. However, they are not extensible, have no integration with IDEs and not suitable for …
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube deployment worked well with our pipeline and had the right integrations with our IDE as well as it worked well with analyzing .NET frameworks when compared to GitHub and GitLab which has some of the functionality and can do some checks, but SonarQube made more sense …
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube is a SAST, SOOS focuses on SCA and DAST - both of which we felt were out of scope for our immediate needs. Plus, through plugins SonarQube is able to accomplish some SCA.
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube identifies significant more thing compared to the built-in suggestions in IntelliJ IDEA. The suggestions how to correct issues are also a lot better with SonarQube. IntelliJ IDEA provides great refactoring support to make it easy to refactor the code to solve issues. …
Chose SonarQube Server
Getting SonarQube instead of the other tools we tested was an easy choice. Snyk was way too much limited to only Docker images and dependency analysis at that time. And Checkmarx was very hard to adapt to our needs : configuring custom quality gates was way too much of a …
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube is much improved version as compared to SonarLint and Findbugs or any other software we found in similar category. It's open source and can be easily integrated with code pipeline.
Chose SonarQube Server
We decided to use SonarQube for the following reasons:
  1. Multi-language support: SonarQube supported all the languages used in our codebase while some of the other tools did not.
  2. Customizable quality profiles: SonarQube allowed teams to create custom quality profiles that aligned …
Chose SonarQube Server
I have used GitHub more that fortify so I am more familiar with GitHub for checking for vulnerabilities. I have noticed GitHub is good for checking different packages within your project but as far as checking code Quality and coverage Sonar is the better one in my opinion. …
Chose SonarQube Server
Visual Studio has some nice code analysis tools, most which can be activated at development time.
But they have some shortcomings and using an external tool allows catching issues that were not seen during development.
Using this dual approach makes for a more robust application …
Chose SonarQube Server
I have used other tools like SoapUI and Postman, but their working and use case are totally different from the SonarQube, so basically cannot compare SonarQube with them. We use SonarQube in our project to basically calculate the code quality report mostly. In that report, we …
Chose SonarQube Server
I personally evaluated klocwork in a previous company and it worked well for Static Code Analysis for C++ applications but the Java support was not as good as SonarQube.

Also the overall tooling and integrations provided by SonarQube is stellar and very other competitors can …
Chose SonarQube Server
Setting up with Azure devops is easier.
Scans results and depth of tweaking/whitelisting code snippets is easier with SonarQube.
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube is an open-source. It's a scalable product. The costs for this application, for the kind of job it does, are pretty descent. Pipeline scan is more secured in SonarQube. Its a very good tool and its support multiple languages. Its main core competency is of static code …
Chose SonarQube Server
SonarQube contains all of their features. Findbugs has very limited capabilities. It is just a static code analyser and does not check for a continous code quality and also not possible to integrate its plugin azure devops .net pipelines and more importantly SonarQube ui is …
Chose SonarQube Server
Sonar Qube doesn't do as good of a job of finding security vulnerabilities as dedicated SAST software, but it does more for code quality that the developers want to see. A comparison of Sonar Qube to something like Veracode or Fortify isn't apples to apples since they're not …
Chose SonarQube Server
We found SonarQube right at the beginning of our research process and found that it met most of our needs. SonarQube fit very nicely into our TFS continuous integration process. We seamlessly integrated the SonarQube steps into our TFS process via the Microsoft Marketplace. …
Chose SonarQube Server
Gitlab, if you have the right license, ships with a static analysis tool. It integrates better with Gitlab, but didn't seem to have the same quality output that Sonarqube did. Sonarqube's community version is plenty suitable for day to day analysis operations.
Best Alternatives
Fortify by OpenTextSonarQube Server
Small Businesses
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Veracode
Veracode
Score 8.7 out of 10
Veracode
Veracode
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Veracode
Veracode
Score 8.7 out of 10
Veracode
Veracode
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Fortify by OpenTextSonarQube Server
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.8
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Fortify by OpenTextSonarQube Server
Likelihood to Recommend
I think Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect could fit really any organization well that needs to perform static code analysis on their applications (they do have dynamic scanning but I don't have any experience using it). Different static analysis tools scan code differently, Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect requires you to provide a full build of the application to be submitted with debugging files which could be easy or hard depending on how your organization is building it's apps.
Read full review
Scenarios where SonarQube is well suited:
  1. Large codebase: The tool's static analysis capabilities can help teams quickly identify and fix bugs, vulnerabilities, and code smells in large codebases.
  2. Compliance and security: The tool can check the code against industry standards or regulations, such as OWASP and CWE, and identify any issues that need to be addressed.
  3. Agile development: SonarQube can be integrated with CI/CD pipelines allowing teams to continuously monitor and improve code quality throughout the development process.
  4. Teams using multiple languages: Teams that use multiple programming languages can benefit from using SonarQube, as the tool supports a wide range of languages and can be integrated with a variety of development tools.
Scenarios where SonarQube may be less appropriate:
  1. Small codebase: Organizations with a small codebase may not see the full benefits of using SonarQube, as the tool's static analysis capabilities may be overkill for a smaller codebase.
  2. Limited resources: Organizations with limited resources may find it difficult to set up and configure SonarQube, as the tool can be complex and may require specialized expertise.
  3. Limited integration: Organizations that use development tools or IDEs that are not supported by SonarQube may find it difficult to integrate the tool into their existing development workflow.
  4. Limited scalability: Large organizations with millions of lines of code may find SonarQube's performance and scalability to be an issue. It may take longer for the analysis to finish and the results may not be as accurate.
Read full review
Pros
  • prevents malware
  • mitigates risks
  • visibility
  • safety
Read full review
  • Generating code quality report
  • Calculates junit coverage of the codebase very efficiently and precisely
  • Highlights the bugs and vulnerabilities in our codebase
  • Informs the user of the improvements which can be done to the code to make it cleaner
  • SonarQube also suggests remediation and resolution of the problems it highlights
Read full review
Cons
  • It should focus on microservices and develop features
  • Performance need to be improved
  • Multiple apps should be easy to scan in parallel thus saving time
Read full review
  • It doesn't provide automatic pull request with fixes
  • It doesn't provide insights about the libraries of the projects
  • The administration management user interface could be simplified
  • It doesn't provide an order to fix issues, like archives with more and frequent commits have top priority
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Since every firm needs to perform static code analysis on their applications, I believe Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect would work well for them (they also offer dynamic scanning, although I haven't used it myself). Different static analysis tools scan code in different ways, and Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect asks you to submit a complete build of the application along with debugging files. Depending on how your company builds its apps, this requirement may be simple or challenging.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
It is a cloud-based platform which can provide us a very useful and unique features like Application Assessment, Scans, Vulnerability Test, Comprehensive Reporting, Monitoring, etc. Fortify by Open Text is also outstanding in various parameters for the support and integration and it is highly adaptable in various DevOps Program where you need secure app testing with all given features.
Read full review
It can improve in some user experience and usability parts, like the code view and the way we assign issues it's a bit hidden and not highlighted
Read full review
Support Rating
Always receive excellent support from the vendor. No issues there.
Read full review
We we easily able to integrate the SonarQube steps into our TFS process via the Microsoft Marektplace, we didn't have the need to call SonarQube support. We've used their online documentation and community forum if we ran into any issues.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect is better when it comes to speed, integration and detection capabilities as compared to Insight Appsec. What I loved the most is the broad coverage of vulnerabilities it identified as against Insight Appsec. Apart from detection capabilities the time taken is also less compared to Insight Appsec. Given the performance of Micro Focus Fortify WebInspect I would strongly recommend to everyone looking for DevSecOps and application security solutions
Read full review
SonarQube identifies significant more thing compared to the built-in suggestions in IntelliJ IDEA. The suggestions how to correct issues are also a lot better with SonarQube. IntelliJ IDEA provides great refactoring support to make it easy to refactor the code to solve issues. We use these tools together and they really complement each other.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Good as part of our security suite to help prevent successful attacks.
  • Reporting of defects helps to educate developers.
  • Worth the price we paid.
Read full review
  • Positive ROI from the standpoint of flagging several issues that would have otherwise likely been unaddressed and caused more time to be spent closer to launch
  • Slightly positive ROI from time-saving perspective (it's an automated check which is nice, but depending on the issues it finds, can take developers time to investigate and resolve)
Read full review
ScreenShots

SonarQube Server Screenshots

Screenshot of Application Status.Screenshot of Portfolio Overview.Screenshot of Taint Analysis.