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

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 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

Coverity Static
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 3.0%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Coverity Static3.0%
OpenText Core Application Security3.1%
Other93.9%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

KT
Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation
Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist
We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.
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

"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"If they have a cluster structure, then definitely they should use Coverity."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"The user interface is good."
"The implementation of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand was simple, since it is on the cloud everything is automatic."
"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."
"It improves future security scans."
"It enforces source-code scanning, finding vulnerabilities in source code."
"The features I found most valuable is that it is very configurable and the installation was also very easy."
"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
 

Cons

"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"The solution could use more rules."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"The solution could use more rules."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"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."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"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."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"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."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
30%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
4%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
What needs improvement with Coverity?
The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but they take a longer time to respond. The core support is not straightforward, an...
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...
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 ...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.