Checkmarx One vs Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Checkmarx and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1, while Black Duck is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.7. Checkmarx holds a 9.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 2.8% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

24,219 Views
15,500 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,459 Views
8,472 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

9,460 Views
6,811 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Coverity Static

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One, Coverity Static, and OpenText Core Application Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: May 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

May 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 899,052 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.2%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 2.8%, down from 8.0% 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.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	9.2%
Coverity Static	2.8%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.2%
Other	84.8%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution

Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance

Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.

Read full review

Benoît Labrique

Software Quality Expert at Endress+Hauser AG

Useful for extra checks but not recommended for C++

We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there. This limitation means it can't detect changes accurately, forcing us to analyze all files instead of just the modified ones. It struggles with repositories organized with different submodules. Although documentation suggests it's possible to configure Coverity to handle this, it requires effort. The solution's analysis tools are high-quality, but the web design could improve. For example, the data is organized into pages when there are many findings, such as ten thousand lines of information. Each page shows about a hundred items, and navigating through these pages (from items 100 to 200, 200 to 300, and so on) can be cumbersome. I've heard from a colleague about another Synopsys tool with a very good GUI. It might be a solution for us to include with Coverity. We invested in Coverity, but compared to SonarQube, it lacks a good interface. SonarQube has a responsive, intuitive GUI, but its analysis quality isn't as good as Coverity's. Coverity's interface isn't great, but its analysis is much better. We hope Synopsys will improve Coverity because it doesn't make a good impression when you first use it. We started with the command line and saw the results were very good. We moved from another tool with a slightly better GUI, but it crashed often, so Coverity was an improvement. When I used the solution earlier, I noticed some issues. It supports C++, which we use, but there's room for improvement. Coverity has two plug-ins. The newer one works well for languages like C# or Java and is very responsive. When we evaluated it with Synopsys, they presented it as easy to configure and install. However, C++ slows down significantly because it's analyzing in the background. It's not very responsive when typing, likely due to the many included files in C++ that need analysis. It's not as quick as with C# or other languages, where you get immediate feedback from Coverity. The classic plug-in is still supported but old-fashioned. It has a manual option, but I haven't checked it. The main problem for C++ users who prefer the old plug-in is responsiveness.

Read full review

Himanshu_Tyagi

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have used this product to verify the dev department's code in order to minimize security holes."

"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."

"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."

"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."

"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."

"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."

"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."

"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."

More Checkmarx One pros

"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."

"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."

"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."

"It's very stable."

"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."

"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."

More Coverity Static pros

"Excellent – from the PoC through setup and implementation; we received timely and knowledgeable support whenever we need it."

"Fortify on Demand is a very good service which can be used by any organization when they are building a team because it identifies security vulnerabilities early in the software development life cycle and provides good visibility into issues in cloud-hosted applications."

"The implementation of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand was simple, since it is on the cloud everything is automatic."

"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is a very easy-to-use solution."

"Fortify on Demand's stability is fantastic - I've never seen slowness, and it performs consistently."

"What is most useful is how you can have related features upgraded on the tools."

"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy."

"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."

"Checkmarx One can be improved by reducing noise and improving false positive filtering."

"Dynamic testing. If it had that feature I would have liked to see more consideration of framework validations that we don't have to duplicate. These flags are false positives."

"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."

"The stability of Checkmarx could improve. We're having issues with it, and the scan reliability is sometimes impacted so we sometimes have to restart the services to allow scans out of the queue."

"Presently they support micro-services, but the supporting methodology of the micro-services is not good enough at the moment."

"For Checkmarx One, I think that adding repositories and scanning impromptu code could improve it."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."

"Coverity is too costly, which is why we are trying other tools."

"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."

"There should be additional IDE support."

"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."

"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."

"I am not a fan of using both SOAP and REST APIs and Coverity offers a mix of functionality depending on the interface used."

"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."

More Coverity Static cons

"I would say OpenText Core Application Security is not very user-friendly in terms of price; it is quite high."

"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."

"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."

"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."

"However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved."

"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."

"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."

"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."

"We're using a commercial version of Checkmarx, and we paid for the solution for one year. The price is high and could be reduced."

"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."

"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."

"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."

"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."

"The solution is costly."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."

"The tool was fairly priced."

"The solution is affordable."

"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."

"Coverity is very expensive."

"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."

"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."

"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."

"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."

"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."

"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."

"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

899,052 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Government

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Government

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	46

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?

I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as ...

See all answers

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 Ap...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additi...

See all answers

How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?

We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and securi...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Coverity?

The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

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 fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 33% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 15% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 7% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Coverity Static

Compared 5% of the time

GitHub Code Scanning vs Coverity Static

Compared 3% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 21% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

DerScanner vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

June 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

June 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

May 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

No data available

Synopsys Static Analysis

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Checkmarx One delivers robust security through seamless integration with SCM and CI/CD tools, ensuring reliable SAST and SCA. Primarily used by organizations for vulnerability detection, it supports cloud and on-premises deployment to enhance secure coding practices.

Checkmarx One provides organizations with comprehensive tools for secure software development, integrating effectively with CI/CD pipelines to scan thousands of applications. Its capabilities extend to identifying vulnerabilities in both code bases and third-party software. Enhancing workflow by supporting SCM solutions, it assists in maintaining secure coding standards and compliance. While excelling in various areas, it requires improvements in scan speed, reduction of false positives, and broader platform integration, particularly for COBOL and Swift. Its pricing model is noted as high, and demand exists for better tutorials and documentation.

What are the key features of Checkmarx One?

Comprehensive Integration: Seamlessly connects with SCM, CI/CD tools to streamline security workflows.
Accurate SAST and SCA: Precisely identifies vulnerabilities down to the exact line of code.
Custom Rules Configuration: Allows tailored security measures to match specific needs.
Quick Scanning: Provides fast analysis to speed up the development process.
Automated Code Remediation: Helps in efficiently fixing code vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect in reviews?

Improved Security: Enhances code safety, reducing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Effective False Positivity Management: Optimizes time spent on genuine issues.
Enhanced Development Processes: Integrates smoothly to boost secure coding initiatives.
Comprehensive Language Support: Facilitates scanning in multiple programming languages, accommodating diverse needs.

Industries implement Checkmarx One for secure coding compliance and vulnerability management across varying environments, choosing between cloud and on-premises deployment based on requirements. Its extensive language support and integration with DevSecOps practices make it a popular choice for organizations aiming to enhance software security.

Checkmarx

Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise actionable remediation advice and context-specific eLearning help your developers understand how to fix their prioritized issues quickly, without having to become security experts.

Coverity seamlessly integrates automated security testing into your CI/CD pipelines and supports your existing development tools and workflows. Choose where and how to do your development: on-premises or in the cloud with the Polaris Software Integrity Platform (SaaS), a highly scalable, cloud-based application security platform. Coverity supports more than 20 languages and 200 frameworks and templates.

Black Duck

OpenText Core Application Security offers robust features like static and dynamic scanning, real-time vulnerability tracking, and seamless integration with development platforms, designed to enhance code security and reduce operational costs.

OpenText Core Application Security is a cloud-based, on-demand service providing accurate and deep scanning capabilities with detailed reporting. Its integrations with development platforms ensure an enhanced security layer in the development lifecycle, benefiting users by lowering operational costs and facilitating efficient remediation. The platform addresses needs for intuitive interfaces, API support, and comprehensive vulnerability assessments, helping improve code security and accelerate time-to-market. Despite its strengths, challenges exist around false positives, report clarity, and language support, alongside confusing pricing and package options. Enhancements are sought in areas like CI/CD pipeline configuration, report visualization, scan times, and integration with third-party tools such as GitLab, container scanning, and software composition analysis.

What features define OpenText Core Application Security?

Static and Dynamic Scanning: Offers thorough analysis to identify vulnerabilities during development.
Real-time Vulnerability Tracking: Continuously updates and monitors potential security threats.
Seamless Development Platform Integration: Enhances security processes without disrupting workflows.
Cloud-Based Service: Provides flexible, on-demand security capabilities with accurate results.
API Support: Allows smooth integration and automation within existing systems.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Reduced Operational Costs: Optimizes resources by lowering costs associated with security management.
Efficient Remediation: Speeds up the process of identifying and resolving vulnerabilities.
Enhanced Code Security: Strengthens overall application security during the development lifecycle.
Accelerated Time-to-Market: Streamlines development stages by integrating essential security tools.

Industries like mobile applications, e-commerce, and banking leverage OpenText Core Application Security for its ability to identify vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. Integrating seamlessly with DevSecOps and security auditing processes, this tool supports developers in writing safer code, ensuring secure application deployment and enhancing software assurance.

OpenText

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

May 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: May 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

899,052 professionals have used our research since 2012.