No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

FOSSA vs OpenText Static 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

FOSSA
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (9th)
OpenText Static Application...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Static Code Analysis (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. FOSSA is designed for Software Composition Analysis (SCA) and holds a mindshare of 2.6%, down 3.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Static Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Static Code Analysis, holds 5.5% mindshare, down 12.0% since last year.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
FOSSA2.6%
Snyk10.9%
Black Duck SCA9.9%
Other76.6%
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing5.5%
Veracode12.2%
Checkmarx One9.6%
Other72.7%
Static Code Analysis
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2588340 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Dependency management enhanced with update suggestions but lacks precise vulnerability tracking
FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually. Some other tools like Check Point or SonarQube provide exact line numbers for bugs. Also, the process in FOSSA can be quite contradicting and not very straightforward for new users.
DK
Lead Information Security Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Focuses on detailed scans to find critical vulnerabilities while ensuring minimal false positives
I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less than the current latest version. It would be really helpful to include trending vulnerabilities and how to manage them. While it includes all the OWASP top factors, AI has come into the picture, so those updates should also be considered. I haven't thought much about additional features for improvement since I am using it daily. Most of our work revolves around scanning and providing the results, which sometimes feels like a crunch. However, I believe rule pack updates should be implemented. It feels easy to upgrade to the latest version as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"FOSSA is at the heart of the license compliance part of our open-source management program."
"Being able to know the licenses of the libraries is most valuable because we sell products, and we need to provide to the customers the licenses that we are using."
"FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch."
"Overall, it's a great product."
"Being able to know the licenses of the libraries is most valuable because we sell products, and we need to provide to the customers the licenses that we are using."
"It improves productivity, saving a lot of time for our software developers."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify all of the components in a build, and then surface the licenses that are associated with it, allowing us to make a decision as to whether or not we allow a team to use the components. That eliminates the risk that comes with running consumer software that contains open source components."
"FOSSA suggests solutions for dependency mismatches."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer tells us if there are any security leaks or not, and if there are, then it's notifying us and does not allow us to pass the DevOps pipeline, but if it finds everything is perfect as per our given guidelines, then it allows us to go ahead and start it, and we are able to deploy it."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code."
"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."
"We are satisfied with this solution."
"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."
"The stability of the solution is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches."
"The stability is good; I'm not running into anything that gives me a problem as far as my pipelines are concerned, and for what I use it for, it is sufficient and I get the results that I'm looking for."
 

Cons

"On the legal and policy sides, there is some room for improvement. I know that our legal team has raised complaints about having to approve the same dependency multiple times, as opposed to having them it across the entire organization."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"I would like more customized categories because our company is so big."
"Security scanning is an area for improvement. At this point, our experience is that we're only scanning for license information in components, and we're not scanning for security vulnerability information. We don't have access to that data. We use other tools for that. It would be an improvement for us to use one tool instead of two, so that we just have to go through one process instead of two."
"I want the product to include binary scanning which is missing at the moment. Binary scanning includes code and component matching through dependency management. It also includes the actual scanning and reverse engineering of the boundaries and finding out what is inside."
"The solution provides contextualized, actionable, intelligence that alerts us to compliance issues, but there is still a little bit of work to be done on it. One of the issues that I have raised with FOSSA is that when it identifies an issue that is an error, why is it in error? What detail can they give to me? They've improved, but that still needs some work. They could provide more information that helps me to identify the dependencies and then figure out where they originated from."
"I would like the FOSSA API to be broader. I would like not to have to interact with the GUI at all, to do the work that I want to do. I would like them to do API-first development, rather than a focus on the GUI."
"The reports don't really work that well for us. They do provide good information but they perform poorly with either the number of projects, or components, in the system."
"False positives need improvement in the future. Fortify's vulnerability remediation guidance helps improve code security, but I think they need to improve the focus of the solution, as it still contains many bugs and needs a thorough review."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good."
"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
"The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified."
"The pricing is a bit high. It would be nice if it was more competitive."
"The price can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's cost is a five out of ten."
"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."
"Its price is reasonable as compared to the market. It is competitively priced in comparison to other similar solutions on the market. It is also quite affordable in terms of the value that it delivers as compared to its alternative of hiring a team."
"FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch. It is very much a "you get what you pay for" scenario. Regardless of the price, I highly recommend FOSSA."
"FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it."
"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."
"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."
"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."
"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."
"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."
"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."
"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."
"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
896,034 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Educational Organization
7%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FOSSA?
The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free. You have to pay for the features you need, which I think is fair. If you want to get value for free...
What needs improvement with FOSSA?
FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually. Some other tools like Check Point or SonarQube provide exact lin...
What is your primary use case for FOSSA?
I have worked with FOSSA primarily to manage the dependencies in our projects. For example, if I take a Spring Boot application, FOSSA helps in identifying mismatches or unsupported dependencies th...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been good. We have the scan machines, and we are planning to request more from Micro Focus now. We have calls every month or every oth...
What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
Our main use cases for Fortify Static Code Analyzer typically involve trying to figure out the critical vulnerabilities. It depends on the type of scans that we are doing, whether it is a release s...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AppDyanmic, Uber, Twitter, Zendesk, Confluent
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Black Duck, Veracode, Snyk and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA). Updated: May 2026.
896,034 professionals have used our research since 2012.