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 Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube16.4%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other70.5%
Application Security Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
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

"The installation was easy."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"Technical support has been good."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."
"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
 

Cons

"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."
"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."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"The scanner could be better."
"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."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"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."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"This solution is very expensive."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
883,546 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
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.
883,546 professionals have used our research since 2012.