You cannot compare a product to itself or the products you were comparing have been merged as this single product.

CodeSonar vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

CodeSecure and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Code Analysis category. CodeSecure is ranked #10, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2. CodeSecure holds a 3.3% mindshare in SCAS, compared to OpenText’s 10.9% 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

2,581 Views
490 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Static Application...

Read 19 OpenText Static Application Security Testing reviews

6,224 Views
1,618 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Static Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

CodeSonar and OpenText Static Application Security Testing are competitive within the realm of static analysis tools. CodeSonar seems to have the upper hand in pricing and support, while OpenText might be preferable for its advanced features.

Features: CodeSonar offers deep code analysis, identifying complex bugs early, excels in user-friendly GUI, and flexible integration options. OpenText provides robust language and platform coverage, advanced security feature set, and comprehensive cross-language analysis.

Room for Improvement: CodeSonar could improve in handling missed runtime errors, enhancing GUI intuitiveness, and expanding language support. OpenText may simplify deployment complexity, streamline user interface, and reduce the learning curve for new users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CodeSonar offers straightforward deployment and efficient integration within development ecosystems along with responsive customer service. OpenText's deployment can be complex, but they offer comprehensive support resources to guide users through the process.

Pricing and ROI: CodeSonar presents a lower initial setup cost, resulting in high ROI through early bug detection. OpenText, while more expensive, provides strong ROI through its enhanced security features and comprehensive testing, appealing to organizations prioritizing thorough security.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,140 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 Static Code Analysis

10th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (31st)

OpenText Static Application...

Ranking in Static Code Analysis

2nd

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 3.3%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Static Application Security Testing is 10.9%, up from 10.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Code Analysis

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

Aphiwat Leetavorn.

CTO at Marco Technology

Provides extensive language support and enhances secure coding practices

The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified. It should be easier to install, perhaps through a container-based approach where everything is combined into one image or pack of containers. This change would facilitate easier installations and ensure all necessary components are connected and ready to use.

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."

"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."

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

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

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

"It has been able to scale."

"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."

"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."

"Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code. It effectively identifies security vulnerabilities by analyzing the code and offering insights on improving it."

"It's helped us free up staff time."

"Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."

"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."

"We've found the documentation to be very good."

"Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines."

"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing pros

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."

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

"It was expensive."

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

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

"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."

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

"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."

"Streamlining the upgrade process and enhancing compatibility would make it easier for us to keep our security tools up-to-date."

"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."

"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."

"The pricing is a bit high."

"The price can be improved."

"False positives need improvement in the future. Fortify's vulnerability remediation guidance helps improve code security, but I think they need to improve the focus of the solution, as it still contains many bugs and needs a thorough review."

"It can be tricky if you want to exclude some files from scanning. For instance, if you do not want to scan and push testing files to Fortify Software Security Center, that is tricky with some IDEs, such as IntelliJ. We found that there is an Exclude feature that is not working. We reported that to them for future fixing. It needs some work on the plugins to make them consistent across IDEs and make them easier."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing 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."

"Pricing is a bit costly."

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

"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."

"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."

"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."

"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."

"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."

"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."

"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."

"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

24%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

11%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Financial Services Firm

29%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like pa...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been good. We have the scan machines, and we are planning to request more from Micro Focus now. We have calls every month or every oth...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less ...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs CodeSonar

Compared 50% of the time

Coverity vs CodeSonar

Compared 24% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

Axivion Static Code Analysis vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

Helix QAC vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Black Duck vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 32% of the time

Snyk vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 17% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 13% of the time

Sonatype Lifecycle vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Codacy vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 1% of the time

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

July 2025

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Static Application Security Testing

August 2025

OpenText Static Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST

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 Static Application Security Testing empowers teams with efficient vulnerability detection and streamlined secure coding practices, offering comprehensive language support and seamless integration with development tools.

OpenText Static Application Security Testing enhances software security during development by accurately identifying vulnerabilities with minimal false positives. It integrates seamlessly with IDEs and CI/CD pipelines, making it highly efficient for early detection of security issues. Users benefit from its easy setup, clear documentation, and centralized portal for managing security findings. Despite facing challenges like high costs and complex configurations for certain languages, its role in facilitating compliance and streamlining secure coding processes is indispensable. Improvements are needed in areas such as outdated design, language support, and integration capabilities to meet evolving user expectations.

What features does OpenText Static Application Security Testing offer?

Seamless IDE Integration: Integrates effortlessly with development environments for real-time feedback.
Comprehensive Language Support: Covers a wide range of programming languages, enhancing detection accuracy.
Centralized Security Portal: Provides a streamlined interface for managing vulnerabilities.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Enhanced Security: Identifies vulnerabilities early, preventing potential breaches.
Time Efficiency: Automates processes and speeds up remediation efforts.
Compliance Facilitation: Assists in adhering to security standards and regulations.

Organizations across diverse sectors implement OpenText Static Application Security Testing primarily to secure applications during development phases. Its integration with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps ensures a robust security pipeline. By combining with Sonatype Nexus, secure code, and library management is achieved effectively.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

July 2025

Free Report: CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best Static Code Analysis vendors.

We monitor all Static Code Analysis 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.