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

CodeSonar vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

CodeSonar
Ranking in Application Security Tools
35th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Static Code Analysis (10th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.0%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.5%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.5%
CodeSonar1.0%
Other95.5%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY - PeerSpot reviewer
Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel
Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand
This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has been able to scale."
"It has helped us a lot with some issues and has helped us avoid bad code."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"CodeSonar has helped our organization because it detects dead and nonusable parts of code to create a more optimized code."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"I would suggest trying out automated tools along with CodeSonar on your project, and you will find out that CodeSonar reports many more defects compared to other static analysis tools, so this is a very important tool."
"The solution is very stable and we have used it for a long time with no issues."
"Secure code is an important part of our day-to-day development activities, so having code out there gives us some reasonable assurance that it is not vulnerable or open to attack, and it certainly makes our overall risk posture better."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"It enforces source-code scanning, finding vulnerabilities in source code."
"It's saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on security consultancy work rather than tool operational work."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"The source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
 

Cons

"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"It was difficult for us to apply a rule, especially to a part of the code, and not apply it to the rest of the code."
"It was expensive."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"The MISRA guidelines were not appropriately reported and there were some flags or errors."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"If you're a beginner, give Fortify a go. If you're a professional, it might be worth looking at other tools because Fortify does have limitations when it comes to scalability and executable codes."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"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."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"It could use better integration with the incident management processor."
"I know OpenText is developing Aviator, similar to ChatGPT, with LLM inside the OpenText Core Application Security environment. However, I understand they do not have it for the on-premises environment."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."
"Pricing is a bit costly."
"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."
"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."
"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."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"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."
"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."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
22%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
I use Fortify on Demand for monitoring up to a certain extent; it provides monitoring and helps analyze and identify issues that could propagate in the application. When used in conjunction with Ar...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.