Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

The compared Black Duck and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in FTT , and holds a 23.3% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #14 in AS , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Read 4 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing reviews

1,067 Views
117 Comparison Views

100% 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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

OpenText Core Application S...

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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)

OpenText Core Application S...

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 23.3%, up 19.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.9% mindshare, down 5.1% since last year.

Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing	23.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	31.5%
GitLab	22.6%
Other	22.599999999999994%

Fuzz Testing Tools

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.9%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)	20.4%
Checkmarx One	10.4%
Other	65.30000000000001%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Sarath Kumar Choday

Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies

Product security tests for switches and router sections

Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.

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

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

"The source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."

"It's a stable and scalable solution."

"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."

"The solution is user-friendly."

"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."

"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."

"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."

"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."

"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."

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

"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 password exposure."

"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."

"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

"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."

"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

"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."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."

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

"It is cost-effective."

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

869,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 30% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 15% of the time

Veracode vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 14% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 13% of the time

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 11% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 15% 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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. GitLab

September 2025

Download Defensics Protocol Fuzzing 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

Codenomicon Defensics

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

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

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

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

We monitor all Fuzz Testing 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.