No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Fortify Software Security Center vs Veracode comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Fortify Software Security C...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
18th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Container Security (13th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 1.4%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.8%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.8%
Fortify Software Security Center1.4%
Other93.8%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Diego Caicedo Lescano - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
Enables centralized analysis and improves governance through seamless tool integration
The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console. You can centralize both static analysis and dynamic analysis, and correlate both analyses in one tool to get better results by combining those independent results from each solution. That is outstanding, and there is no tool I have seen on the market that offers these capabilities. I appreciate the interoperability with other solutions from Fortify Software Security Center. Because we are using Kiuwan, you can run Kiuwan analyses and integrate them with Fortify Software Security Center to get those results in a single console. That is a good console for centralizing things in one point. That is one of the best features of the on-premises Fortify.
reviewer2753535 - PeerSpot reviewer
DevSecOps Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Integrates security into the development process and improves team collaboration
Veracode helps organizations develop software by reducing the risk of security vulnerabilities through developer enablement and applications focused on governance. You can utilize different levels of processes to achieve better performance or a more scalable service. Since I started working with it in 2022, I’ve found it to be cost-effective as well. Overall, Veracode is a user-friendly security tool. It includes features such as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA). During the development phase, we can identify vulnerabilities in the application. This process occurs in the staging environment during development. When we're ready to go to production, we conduct a final check. Essentially, this tool helps identify vulnerabilities during the code development stage, including both high-level vulnerabilities and those related to open-source software composition. We utilize specific methodologies for this purpose. Additionally, it offers a feature that allows us to set up policies based on client requirements. This means we can customize the tool to meet the specific needs of our clients, ensuring that they receive the appropriate level of security in their applications. Veracode is user-friendly as well. Compared to other tools, their scans take 15 minutes or under. If you have a large scale of libraries or data, it might take longer, but based on my personal experience, the scan usually runs within fifteen minutes. For my case study using the Veracode tool, I worked on an internal project following industry standards. We used Veracode to improve our security posture and speed up the time to market by streamlining the development process. This enhanced collaboration between developers, operations, and security teams. The automated scanning process helped identify and fix vulnerabilities earlier in the development process. We maintained compliance with regulatory requirements, avoided fines, and built customer trust by integrating security into the development process. When we conduct this scan, we receive data on a list of vulnerabilities. This information improved our communication and increased transparency, which leads to better reports about the efforts being put in. This results in a more effective and efficient collaboration process, making it user-friendly for all involved. When considering costs, if we resort to manual processes, it can be time-consuming. Therefore, we utilize automated scans to identify and fix security issues. This allows us to address vulnerabilities early in the development process, as we discussed previously. This applies both to our in-house code and third-party libraries, using Software Composition Analysis (SCA) agent-based scans. In the future, we will also implement SCA agent-based scans as a separate feature within Veracode, which can help organizations avoid the expensive and time-consuming consequences of security issues. Furthermore, we have seen an increase in compliance, helping to maintain adherence to regulatory requirements and industry standards, thereby avoiding fines and reputational damage associated with noncompliance. Additionally, by integrating security into the development process, we enhance customer trust in our organization and its products.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."
"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."
"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."
"It's very important because they want to scan their source code every day, so we provide CICD integration to our customers so they can auto build and auto test every day, get reports, and fix issues."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console."
"The product provides guidance to develop secure software."
"We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes."
"Veracode has good support for microservices, and I also like the sandbox environment. For example, when introducing a new component, we can scan it in a sandbox environment. It will not impact the main environment. When our team fixes it, they. can push it to the production environment when the results are acceptable."
"It does software composition analysis, discovering open source software weaknesses."
"The static scan and the detailed reports, which include issue information and permissions, are the most valuable features."
"Ours is a Java-based application and Veracode can detect vulnerabilities in both Angular, which is used for the UI, and also in the backend code, which includes APIs and microservices."
"It makes it very easy to track and monitor activity."
"Our customers have benefited by being able to have a little bit more assurance from us, from a trusted authority, that our code is properly flaw-free and remediated."
 

Cons

"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"The support for Fortify on-premises is the same as for the other products. I would say the support is not good and I would rate it a three out of ten."
"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"The initial setup of this solution is very complex. Specifically, the integration between other parts of the solution is difficult."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided."
"The on-platform reporting needs to be opened up much more. We'd like to be able to look at the inspection data from a trending perspective in a much more open manner. I need to be able to sort and filter much more flexibly than I can today."
"The solution could improve the Dynamic Analysis Security Testing(DAST)."
"Scanning large amounts of code can be a time-consuming process and there is scope for improvement."
"Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis."
"We get some false positives with JavaScript languages like React, TypeScript, and Angular. The problem is rooted in the build process of JavaScript, not the code we are using. This is something we spend lots of time trying to resolve. When we point to a specific library and review that on the code, we can see it is a part of the build that isn't going into production. It's only a part of the build because JavaScript has a different build process."
"It could be improved with support for more programming languages, like SQL."
"We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is priced fair."
"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."
"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."
"Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription."
"I don't really know about the pricing, but I'd say it's worth whatever Veracode is charging, because the solution is that good."
"No issues, the pricing seems reasonable."
"The product’s price is a bit higher compared to other solutions."
"The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning."
"The pricing depends on the functionality each client desires."
"Veracode's pricing is competitive."
"It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it only for 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business70
Midsize Enterprise46
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?
In my opinion, there are no areas that could be improved with Fortify Software Security Center. I would say it is a good product and a mature product. However, the SAST has many improvement areas. ...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
We have installed Fortify Static Code Analysis, SAST, in Ecuador in two customers. The Fortify ScanCentral includes three components: SAST, Fortify Software Security Center, and the WebInspect.
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Software Security Center vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.