CodeSonar vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

CodeSecure and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. CodeSecure is ranked #30, while OpenText is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.0. CodeSecure holds a 1.5% mindshare in AS, compared to OpenText’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of CodeSecure users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

2,608 Views
1,800 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 60 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,920 Views
5,121 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and CodeSonar compete in the application security analysis category. OpenText has the upper hand with broader application security services while CodeSonar excels in static analysis features.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security integrates well with SAST and DAST, effectively scans source code, and identifies vulnerabilities early in the development process. Its centralized management and efficient use for occasional testing needs are notable. CodeSonar is known for its speed and detailed analysis, particularly in detecting runtime errors and identifying dead code, alongside a precise user-friendly interface.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security needs enhanced reporting and visual capabilities, support for more programming languages, and a reduction in false positives. Its pricing model and integration with incident management systems require attention, as do deployment speed and complexity reduction for developers. CodeSonar could benefit from better coding rules and better support for programming languages like AngularJS and Node.js. Also, improving its static analysis tool and offering more licensing flexibility might be advantageous.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security offers diverse deployment options, including on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments, which is appealing for different organizational infrastructures. Its customer service is generally positive, though technical support responsiveness varies. CodeSonar is mainly available on-premises, limiting users seeking cloud options, and is praised for its knowledgeable and reliable customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is seen as expensive but justified by its capabilities. More flexible pricing could improve adoption. CodeSonar’s pricing might deter smaller teams but its unique features make it worth the investment, providing good ROI through risk reduction and seamless integration into existing workflows.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,787 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

CodeSonar

Ranking in Application Security Tools

30th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (10th)

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Application Security Tools

14th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.9%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.9%
CodeSonar	1.5%
Other	94.6%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY

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.

Read full review

Jonathan Steyn

Principal Technical Consultant at EOH

Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis

Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

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

"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."

"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."

"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."

"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."

"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

"It has been able to scale."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."

"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."

"Speed and efficiency are great features."

"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."

"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"

"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."

"The SAST feature is the most valuable."

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

"It's a stable and scalable solution."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"It was expensive."

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."

"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."

"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."

"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."

"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."

"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."

"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."

"The products must provide better integration with build tools."

"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."

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

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."

"Reporting could be improved."

"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"The solution is a little expensive."

"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"It is cost-effective."

"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 licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."

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

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

"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

24%

University

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	43

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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?

There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as passw...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs CodeSonar

Compared 45% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 27% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 9% of the time

Axivion Static Code Analysis vs CodeSonar

Compared 4% of the time

Helix QAC vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 13% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 9% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

September 2025

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

September 2025

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

GrammaTech enables organizations to develop software applications more efficiently, on-budget, and on-schedule by helping to eliminate harmful defects that can cause system failures, enable data breaches, and ultimately increase corporate liabilities in today’s connected world. GrammaTech is the developer of CodeSonar, the most powerful source and binary code analysis solution available today. Extraordinarily precise, CodeSonar finds, on average, 2 times more serious defects in software than other static analysis solutions. Designed for organizations with zero tolerance for defects and vulnerabilities in their applications, CodeSonar provides static analysis for applications where reliability and security are paramount - widely used by software developers in avionics, medical, automotive, industrial control, and other mission-critical applications. Some of GrammaTech's customers include Toyota, GE, Hyundai, Kawasaki, LG, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic, and Samsung.

CodeSecure

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

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

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

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

September 2025

Free Report: CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security report.

See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.