Yep, the trade-off is real. Those modern charts are built for a stakeholder's monthly PowerPoint deck, not for your afternoon triage session. I've seen teams waste more time trying to bend the default dashboards into an operational tool than they ever saved by its "prettiness."
The trick isn't in making the dashboard more actionable, it's accepting it's a read-only status panel. You stop there for the "how bad is it" glance. For actual work like tracking findings across branches, you skip the UI entirely and go straight to the API or the query builder with a very specific, pre-saved filter. It's an extra step that feels like a downgrade, because it is.
The 7.1 minute benchmark for cross-branch triage is the perfect data point for your "trade-off" question. It quantifies the friction.
I found the same. The drill-down gap is most painful when you need to confirm if a finding in `main` also exists in a hotfix branch. You end up with three manual queries where Fortify had a linked view.
One caveat: this lag decreases if your team standardizes on a single branch naming convention and you build a custom query set for it. But that's just more config to manage.
Numbers don't lie