Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Checkmarx and OpenText are both solutions in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2, while OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 17.0% mindshare in DAST, compared to OpenText’s 11.0% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

18,489 Views
2,034 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,095 Views
1,145 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Checkmarx One and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing are both strong contenders in application security testing. Checkmarx One seems to have the upper hand due to its automation, early detection capabilities, and flexible licensing options that offer greater integration and cost efficiency.

Features: Checkmarx One is known for its comprehensive scanning across multiple languages, seamless integration with SCM tools, and extensive coverage across CI/CD pipelines. Users find its automation and early vulnerability detection crucial for maintaining security. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, is praised for robust session management and API testing capabilities, though it struggles with scanning speed and handling various application types compared to Checkmarx.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One users desire improvements in SAST scan speed, enhanced dashboard customization, and better handling of false positives. Suggestions also include more AI-assisted fixes and transparency in the correlation engine. For OpenText, users highlight the need for better pricing models, ease of installation, expanded application support, and faster scan reporting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One is commended for its ease of deployment across multiple platforms, including public cloud services, with a responsive and effective customer support team. Conversely, OpenText's deployment options are more limited to on-premises setups, and while customer service is rated well, users seek quicker issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: Although Checkmarx One requires a significant investment, users consider its broad feature set and ROI beneficial, noting reduced development times and improved security outcomes. In contrast, OpenText faces criticism for high costs and limited financial flexibility, particularly impacting smaller enterprises, whereas Checkmarx's flexible licensing offers a more integrated approach to security.

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

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,360 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 One

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

2nd

Ranking in DevSecOps

2nd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (7th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

3rd

Ranking in DevSecOps

9th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 17.0%, down from 27.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 11.0%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Checkmarx One	17.0%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.0%
Other	72.0%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

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

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

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 identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. 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 best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."

"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."

"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."

"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization, especially in our CI/CD integration, where when we try to build any feature, they are always scanned by Checkmarx before they get released."

"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."

"The best features Checkmarx One offers, in my opinion, are that it is easy to use, and there is not much deep diving into this."

More Checkmarx One pros

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."

"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."

"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."

"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."

"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."

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

"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."

"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."

"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."

"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."

"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."

"It's relatively expensive."

"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."

"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."

"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."

"The tool's pricing is fine."

"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."

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

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"The price is okay."

"This solution is very expensive."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,360 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

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	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

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 well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.

See all answers

What do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

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 additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 48% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

GitLab vs Checkmarx One

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 20% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

January 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

January 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

December 2025

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,360 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) vendors and best DevSecOps vendors.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.