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 #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while Black Duck is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.8. Checkmarx holds a 10.4% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 3.8% 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

18,784 Views
14,276 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

9,882 Views
8,103 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,712 Views
4,967 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, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

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

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,837 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 April 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.4%, down from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 3.8%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.0%, down from 4.7% 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	10.4%
Coverity Static	3.8%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.0%
Other	82.8%

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

Kasiraja Thangapandian

Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation

Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist

We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.

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

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."

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

"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."

"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."

"By using the automated testing in Checkmarx One, we have saved around one or two days in a full week of our team because we have a lot of code to do with seven markets."

"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."

"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things, and it also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."

"The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes."

More Checkmarx One pros

"This product has definitely helped our organization, and based on what I have heard from the development team, they have found a lot of issues before code goes into production."

"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."

"If they have a cluster structure, then definitely they should use Coverity."

"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."

"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."

"The product is easy to use."

"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."

"Coverity is helping us identify some of the critical defects at the early stages of the development life cycle, so overall, it is giving us a greater ROI and making our application more mature and robust."

More Coverity Static pros

"I do not remember any issues with stability."

"If you are looking for commercial tools, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is one of the best tools."

"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."

"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."

"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."

"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."

"If somebody wants to shift left or integrate security early on in the CI/CD pipeline from a DevOps standpoint, this is probably one of the best tools available."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."

"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."

"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."

"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."

"Checkmarx One is often down when the cloud provider experiences issues. A more fail-tolerant solution needs to be created."

"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."

"The purchase of this solution was a mistake. I would advise others to deploy the solution and to test all of the functionality before buying and do not trust the marketing from Checkmarx."

"Vulnerability details: Reduce false positive results and improve it by providing more details how I can resolve the vulnerability."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The solution could use more rules."

"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."

"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."

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

"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."

"Coverity is not stable."

"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."

"The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through."

More Coverity Static cons

"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."

"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."

"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now."

"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise."

"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."

"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 can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."

"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"The tool's pricing is fine."

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."

"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."

"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."

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

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

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

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

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

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

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

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"Coverity is quite 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."

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

"It is cost-effective."

"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."

"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."

"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."

"The solution is a little expensive."

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

"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."

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

885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Government

Manufacturing Company

31%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

15%

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	45

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 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

What needs improvement with Checkmarx?

One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If i...

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?

If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whet...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

I have been working with AWS cloud for the past six to seven years, and in my current role, I am working on AWS cloud...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 41% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Application Defender vs Checkmarx One

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 21% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 7% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

GitHub Code Scanning vs Coverity Static

Compared 4% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 19% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 3% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

April 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

April 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

March 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 is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

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)

March 2026

Download Free Report

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.