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 (14th), 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 4.7% compared to last year.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 10.6% mindshare, up 9.2% since last year.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube17.9%
Checkmarx One10.2%
Other68.7%
Application Security Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing10.6%
Veracode19.4%
Checkmarx One17.2%
Other52.8%
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

"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."
"The installation was easy."
"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"The solution is easy to use."
 

Cons

"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"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."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"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."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"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."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"The price is okay."
"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."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
Government
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
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.
881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.