FOSSA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

The compared FOSSA and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. FOSSA is ranked #8 in SCA , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 3.2% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #3 in SCAS , with an average rating of 8.1, and holds a 8.3% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of FOSSA users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

FOSSA

Read 15 FOSSA reviews

1,556 Views
1,494 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

OpenText Static Application...

Read 19 OpenText Static Application Security Testing reviews

4,963 Views
1,390 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

FOSSA

OpenText Static Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between FOSSA and OpenText Static Application Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Snyk, Black Duck, Veracode and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA).

To learn more, read our detailed Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Report (Updated: November 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

November 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,310 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th)

OpenText Static Application...

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (3rd)

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 3.2%, down 3.5% compared to last year.
OpenText Static Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Static Code Analysis, holds 8.3% mindshare, down 10.9% since last year.

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
FOSSA	3.2%
Black Duck SCA	13.5%
Snyk	11.5%
Other	71.8%

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

Static Code Analysis Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing	8.3%
Veracode	16.5%
Checkmarx One	11.6%
Other	63.6%

Static Code Analysis

Featured Reviews

reviewer2588340

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.

Read full review

Dristi Kurre

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I am impressed with the tool’s seamless integration and quick results."

"One of the things that I really like about FOSSA is that it allows you to go very granular. For example, if there's a package that's been flagged because it's subject to a license that may be conflicts with or raises a concern with one of the policies that I've set, then FOSSA enables you to go really granular into that package to see which aspects of the package are subject to which licenses. We can ultimately determine with our engineering teams if we really need this part of the package or not. If it's raising this flag, we can make really actionable decisions at a very micro level to enable the build to keep pushing forward."

"The most valuable feature is definitely the ease and speed of integrating into build pipelines, like a Jenkins pipeline or something along those lines. The ease of a new development team coming on board and integrating FOSSA with a new project, or even an existing project, can be done so quickly that it's invaluable and it's easy to ask the developers to use a tool like this. Those developers greatly value the very quick feedback they get on any licensing or security vulnerability issues."

"The support team has just been amazing, and it helps us to have a great support team from FOSSA. They are there to triage and answer all our questions which come up by using their product."

"FOSSA provided us with contextualized, easily actionable intelligence that alerted us to compliance issues. I could tell FOSSA exactly what I cared about and they would tell me when something was out of policy. I don't want to hear from the compliance tool unless I have an issue that I need to deal with. That was what was great about FOSSA is that it was basically "Here's my policy and only send me an alert if there's something without a policy." I thought that it was really good at doing that."

"Their CLI tool is very efficient. It does not send your source code over to their servers. It just does fingerprinting. It is also very easy to integrate into software development practices."

"Policies and identification of open-source licensing issues are the most valuable features. It reduces the time needed to identify open-source software licensing issues."

"What I really need from FOSSA, and it does a really good job of this, is to flag me when there are particular open source licenses that cause me or our legal department concern. It points out where a particular issue is, where it comes from, and the chain that brought it in, which is the most important part to me."

More FOSSA pros

"Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines."

"We've found the documentation to be very good."

"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."

"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."

"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."

"My initial setup of Fortify Static Code Analyzer was good."

"Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like password credentials and access keys embedded in the code."

"Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"We have seen some inaccuracies or incompleteness with the distribution acknowledgments for an application, so there's certainly some room for improvement there. Another big feature that's missing that should be introduced is snippet matching, meaning, not just matching an entire component, but matching a snippet of code that had been for another project and put in different files that one of our developers may have created."

"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."

"FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually."

"The technical support has room for improvement."

"On the dashboard, there should be an option to increase the column width so that we can see the complete name of the GitHub repository. Currently, on the dashboard, we see the list of projects, but to see the complete name, you have to hover your mouse over an item, which is annoying."

"I wish there was a way that you could have a more global rollout of it, instead of having to do it in each repository individually. It's possible, that's something that is offered now, or maybe if you were using the CI Jenkins, you'd be able to do that. But with Travis, there wasn't an easy way to do that. At least not that I could find. That was probably the biggest issue."

"I would like more customized categories because our company is so big. This is doable for them. They are still in the stages of trying to figure this out since we are one of their biggest companies that they support."

More FOSSA cons

"I have not seen a return on investment with Fortify Static Code Analyzer."

"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."

"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."

"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."

"The generation of false positives should be reduced."

"The pricing is a bit high."

"The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified."

"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."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."

"The solution's cost is a five out of ten."

"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."

"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 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 setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."

"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."

"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."

"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."

"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."

"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Computer Software Company

Educational Organization

Financial Services Firm

28%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	11

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with FOSSA?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like pa...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

See all answers

Comparisons

Black Duck SCA vs FOSSA

Compared 28% of the time

Snyk vs FOSSA

Compared 18% of the time

Mend.io vs FOSSA

Compared 10% of the time

JFrog Xray vs FOSSA

Compared 10% of the time

SCANOSS vs FOSSA

Compared 3% of the time

More FOSSA Competitors

Black Duck SCA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 29% of the time

Snyk vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 13% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Sonatype Lifecycle vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

DeepSource vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 1% of the time

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

FOSSA

December 2025

Download FOSSA product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Static Application Security Testing

December 2025

OpenText Static Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST

Overview

Up to 90% of any piece of software is from open source, creating countless dependencies and areas of risk to manage. FOSSA is the most reliable automated policy engine for legal teams to maintain license compliance, security to fix vulnerabilities, and engineering to improve code quality across the entire software supply chain. As the only developer-native open source management platform, FOSSA fully integrates with your existing CI/CD pipeline to provide complete visibility and context earlier in the software development lifecycle. For the first time, teams can collaboratively shift left and audit, analyze, control, and remediate license issues and vulnerabilities right in their existing workflows.

FOSSA

OpenText Static Application Security Testing empowers teams with efficient vulnerability detection and streamlined secure coding practices, offering comprehensive language support and seamless integration with development tools.

OpenText Static Application Security Testing enhances software security during development by accurately identifying vulnerabilities with minimal false positives. It integrates seamlessly with IDEs and CI/CD pipelines, making it highly efficient for early detection of security issues. Users benefit from its easy setup, clear documentation, and centralized portal for managing security findings. Despite facing challenges like high costs and complex configurations for certain languages, its role in facilitating compliance and streamlining secure coding processes is indispensable. Improvements are needed in areas such as outdated design, language support, and integration capabilities to meet evolving user expectations.

What features does OpenText Static Application Security Testing offer?

Seamless IDE Integration: Integrates effortlessly with development environments for real-time feedback.
Comprehensive Language Support: Covers a wide range of programming languages, enhancing detection accuracy.
Centralized Security Portal: Provides a streamlined interface for managing vulnerabilities.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Enhanced Security: Identifies vulnerabilities early, preventing potential breaches.
Time Efficiency: Automates processes and speeds up remediation efforts.
Compliance Facilitation: Assists in adhering to security standards and regulations.

Organizations across diverse sectors implement OpenText Static Application Security Testing primarily to secure applications during development phases. Its integration with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps ensures a robust security pipeline. By combining with Sonatype Nexus, secure code, and library management is achieved effectively.

OpenText

Sample Customers

AppDyanmic, Uber, Twitter, Zendesk, Confluent

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

November 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Snyk, Black Duck, Veracode and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA). Updated: November 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.