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

Cequence Security vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Cequence Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
24th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Bot Management (9th), API Security (5th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Cequence Security is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
Cequence Security0.6%
Other96.2%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2395431 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology Consultant at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Detect and mitigate attacks with API protection
Compliance with standards like those in Europe often requires ensuring that APIs adhere to OAuth and other security protocols. Many organizations need to verify that their APIs meet these compliance requirements. We can include information about where an API was first recorded and create a detailed chart. Some competitors already offer this feature. It is simple to integrate. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It uses machine learning algorithms to detect attacks and manage API inventory."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"HP Fortify is perfect for any company that creates their own applications or uses vendor-developed ones; it’s great for QA and development phases."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"The process was easy to follow and we were supported 24/7 by TAM personnel to help with any fire drills, which was helpful many times when I needed a quick answer late at night or early in the morning."
"The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities, and it is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it."
 

Cons

"It is expensive."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers."
"When we sent a question about the product to their support team, we had to wait a while but they did send us a response eventually."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent. When we are coding the endpoint it will not work, we have to use Windows Agent. This is something they could improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"It is cost-effective."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Cequence Security?
We use the solution to detect and mitigate attacks. It helps prevent them while also protecting APIs and effectively managing API inventory.
What advice do you have for others considering Cequence Security?
Compliance with standards like those in Europe often requires ensuring that APIs adhere to OAuth and other security protocols. Many organizations need to verify that their APIs meet these complianc...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...
 

Also Known As

Cequence ASP, Cequence Unified API Protection Platform
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

T-Mobile, Lbrands, Ulta Beauty
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: June 2026.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.