CodeSonar vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

AdaCore and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. AdaCore is ranked #35, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.8. AdaCore holds a 1.0% mindshare in AS, compared to OpenText’s 3.3% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of AdaCore users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

3,629 Views
2,468 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

10,911 Views
8,074 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

OpenText Core Application Security and CodeSonar compete in the vulnerability management category, each offering unique strengths to safeguard code security throughout the software lifecycle. OpenText seems to have the upper hand with its wider language support and comprehensive scanning speed, while CodeSonar excels in runtime error detection and precise log configurations.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security effectively integrates into DevOps workflows, enhancing proactive security by scanning a broad range of languages, offering a comprehensive scanning dashboard and seamless integration for security-enhanced development. CodeSonar focuses on runtime error detection and dead code analysis, providing specialized support for languages like C and C++. Its precise log configuration is a notable feature that aids in detailed performance analysis.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security faces challenges related to scan times and false positives, with users seeking better development tool integration and improved AI capabilities. It also needs enhanced support for complex websites and reduced latency. CodeSonar could enhance its offering by extending language support beyond C and C++, simplifying the initial setup, and improving integration with industry coding standards.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security offers flexible deployment options in cloud, on-premises, and hybrid settings, although slow customer service response times have been noted. CodeSonar's deployment in both cloud and on-premises environments is accompanied by generally positive support feedback, known for being more responsive than OpenText. Technical support enhancements remain necessary for both products.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is perceived as expensive, justified by its high security value and reduced bug densities, offering flexible licensing yet at a cost. CodeSonar, also considered pricey based on code line scans, is seen as a worthy investment for its reliability and scanning capabilities that meet demanding security requirements.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 908,800 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

35th

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

11th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.0%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.3%, down from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.3%
CodeSonar	1.0%
Other	95.7%

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

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 tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

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

"It has helped us a lot with some issues and has helped us avoid bad code."

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

"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."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times."

"It has been able to scale."

"The solution is very stable and we have used it for a long time with no issues."

More CodeSonar pros

"The process was easy to follow and we were supported 24/7 by TAM personnel to help with any fire drills, which was helpful many times when I needed a quick answer late at night or early in the morning."

"I would definitely recommend Micro Focus Fortify any day for clients who are looking for a good security solution."

"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."

"When choosing a software security product, we expect the product not only has the ability to find exploits, but also has educational and instructional capabilities related to exploits."

"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."

"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."

"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions."

"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."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"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."

"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 was expensive."

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

"The MISRA guidelines were not appropriately reported and there were some flags or errors."

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

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

"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."

More CodeSonar cons

"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."

"There are many false positives identified by the solution."

"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."

"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."

"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."

"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."

"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."

"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"Pricing is a bit costly."

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

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

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

"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."

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

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

908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

22%

Computer Software Company

University

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Construction Company

Outsourcing Company

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	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	46

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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?

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs CodeSonar

Compared 13% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 9% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 26% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

July 2026

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

July 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

CodeSonar offers a potent tool for static code analysis, adept in detecting runtime errors and security vulnerabilities, with a fast deployment process and scalable capabilities. Its quick analysis and efficient web interface provide a strong basis for code quality validation.

CodeSonar specializes in identifying runtime errors, dead code, and security threats while providing features like code surfing and browsing. It offers a highly efficient web interface, though users find initial setup complex and highlight the need for better static analysis, broader language support beyond C and C++, and an improved licensing model. Despite these challenges, its integration with Jenkins and technical guidance support makes it a reliable choice for teams in defense and software quality assessment. Deployment is quick and easy, yet initial costs are a common concern among users.

What are the key features of CodeSonar?

Quick Analysis: Delivers fast runtime error detection and reporting.
GUI Interface: Offers a user-friendly experience for code browsing.
Scalability: Efficiently deploys across various environments.
Security and Code Detection: Identifies vulnerabilities and potential bugs.
Effective Configuration: Simplified log and analysis configuration.

What benefits can be seen in user reviews?

Detection of Code Vulnerabilities: Enhances security with robust threat detection.
Process Integration: Seamlessly integrates with DevOps tools such as Jenkins.
Scalable Deployment: Quickly adaptable in expanding environments.
GUI Usability: Highly efficient for technical teams to navigate.

CodeSonar is primarily implemented in industries like defense and companies prioritizing code quality. Teams utilize its static code analysis and threat detection capabilities, integrating with Jenkins for continuous integration workflows. Security checks post-builds and technical support are common, aiding in effective defect management.

AdaCore

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

August 2026

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: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

908,800 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.