Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Core Application Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

OpenText Core Application S...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (13th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Core Application Security is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 3.2%, down 4.5% compared to last year.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 11.3% mindshare, up 9.7% since last year.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube16.4%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other70.5%
Application Security Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing11.3%
Veracode17.2%
Checkmarx One16.4%
Other55.1%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
AP
Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."
"The solution is very fast."
"I use the solution in my company for security code scans."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"Technical support has been good."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
 

Cons

"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"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."
"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."
"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 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."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"The initial setup was complex."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is cost-effective."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"The price is okay."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"This solution is very expensive."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
883,448 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

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.
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?
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. T...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?
I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Core Application Security vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.
883,448 professionals have used our research since 2012.