Checkmarx SAST vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Checkmarx and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #23 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.3. Checkmarx holds a 1.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 3.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx SAST

Read 5 Checkmarx SAST reviews

1,239 Views
1,227 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 62 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,484 Views
4,863 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Checkmarx SAST

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and Checkmarx SAST are competitors in the application security space. While OpenText has advantages in pricing and support, Checkmarx's comprehensive features make it a more compelling choice for those needing robust security solutions.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security focuses on integration and simplicity, making it easy to incorporate into existing workflows. It also offers ease of use, flexibility in deployment, and prioritizes integration. Checkmarx SAST supports a wide range of programming languages, provides in-depth static analysis, and integrates with CI/CD pipelines, allowing for thorough and flexible security assessments.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security could enhance its features by offering greater depth in security analysis and expanding its language support. It might also improve the complexity and detail of its security evaluations. Checkmarx SAST, however, may benefit from a more streamlined initial setup process, enhanced customer training resources, and improvements to its interface to simplify user interactions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security is noted for its quick deployment and robust customer support, assisting users with efficient integration. In contrast, Checkmarx SAST requires a more comprehensive setup process but provides superior customer support for detailed configurations, which although complex, enable enhanced security capabilities.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is cost-effective for budget-conscious businesses, offering a quicker return on investment through affordable integration. Conversely, Checkmarx SAST demands a higher initial investment due to its advanced features. However, the long-term return on investment is justified by its enhanced security capabilities and thorough analysis.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,114 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:

Categories and Ranking

Checkmarx SAST

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

23rd

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx SAST is 1.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.1%
Checkmarx SAST	1.6%
Other	95.3%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Tharindu Malwenna

Senior Application Security Engineer at a newspaper with 5,001-10,000 employees

Has supported early vulnerability detection but requires tuning to reduce false positives and scanning delays

When assessing the accuracy and efficiency of Checkmarx SAST scanning capabilities, they are currently recommending that doing the full scan is the main, correct way of scanning the repositories. However, based on the repository size we have, it sometimes takes more than 10 minutes for larger repositories, which is a downside. The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities. Those are the major things that we have to fine-tune from our end. I would rate Checkmarx SAST around a seven, as it does have some false positives we have to work with, which are the major concerning things. The number of false positives is significant because we cannot implement policies because of this.

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 important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."

"The detailed reports from Checkmarx SAST help with our security process by showing details about which line is actually vulnerable, which is beneficial for the developers, and I do not have any suggestions or inputs on that area."

"The CX1 is a unified platform that covers all components such as SAST, SCA, DAST, container scanning, and infrastructure code, which is quite beneficial because some clients need one-stop solutions for all their needs."

"This helps us a lot in identifying vulnerabilities in early stages, and the integration within the IDEs helps developers get the results into their IDE itself, making it easier for them to fix vulnerabilities."

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."

"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."

"The source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."

"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."

"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."

"The solution is very fast."

"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"

"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."

"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."

"The licensing was good."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities."

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability."

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."

"I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in communication."

"The main challenge with Checkmarx SAST is the price. The price is a challenge because Checkmarx SAST is a very big brand, and many mid-sized companies cannot afford it as they are very price-conscious."

"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."

"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."

"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."

"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."

"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."

"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."

"I would rate the support for OpenText at no more than three out of ten; it is really bad, and we encounter a lot of problems when getting support."

"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."

"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

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

"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."

"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."

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

"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."

"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."

"The product's cost depends on the type of license."

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

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	44

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?

We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?

Our main use cases with Checkmarx SAST are currently in the implementation stage where we have utilized integrations with IDEs and have already integrated within the entire organization, which will...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.

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 is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

See all answers

Comparisons

Checkmarx One vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 40% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 11% of the time

SonarQube vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 8% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 6% of the time

More Checkmarx SAST Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 12% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

January 2026

Download Checkmarx SAST product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

January 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

SAST

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Checkmarx SAST provides advanced static application security testing by identifying vulnerabilities in source code. It's ideal for ISOs, security professionals, and developers striving to secure applications during development.

Checkmarx SAST is known for its powerful code scanning capabilities that integrate seamlessly into existing development environments. It supports a wide range of programming languages, which makes it applicable for diverse development projects. Some users suggest improvements in the scan performance speed and enhanced support in handling false positives to further optimize workflow efficiency.

What are the standout features of Checkmarx SAST?

Language Support: Offers broad language support catering to multiple coding frameworks.
Integration Flexibility: Seamlessly integrates with existing CI/CD pipelines and developer tools.
Comprehensive Scanning: Detects security vulnerabilities early in the development process.
Detailed Reporting: Provides comprehensive reports that help prioritize remediation efforts.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Improved Security Posture: Enhances application security by catching vulnerabilities early.
Cost Efficiency: Reduces costs associated with post-deployment issue resolution.
Developer Empowerment: Allows developers to identify and fix issues independently.
Regulatory Compliance: Assists in meeting compliance requirements efficiently.

Implemented across various industries, Checkmarx SAST supports sectors like finance, healthcare, and technology with their stringent security requirements. By integrating seamlessly into existing workflows, it ensures that applications remain secure while not disrupting industry-specific processes.

Checkmarx

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

Information Not Available

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

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security

December 2025

Free Report: Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.