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 (9th)
 

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 4.6% compared to last year.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 11.0% mindshare, up 9.5% since last year.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube16.9%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other70.0%
Application Security Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing11.0%
Veracode18.2%
Checkmarx One17.0%
Other53.8%
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

"Fortify on Demand is a very good service which can be used by any organization when they are building a team because it identifies security vulnerabilities early in the software development life cycle and provides good visibility into issues in cloud-hosted applications."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"The licensing was good."
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"I use the solution in my company for security code scans."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"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."
 

Cons

"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"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."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"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 Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"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."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"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."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is a little expensive."
"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."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"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."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"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.
882,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
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.
882,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.