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

FOSSA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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) (11th)
OpenText Static Application...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Static Code Analysis (8th)
 

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 2.3%, down 3.0% compared to last year.
OpenText Static Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Static Code Analysis, holds 4.3% mindshare, down 9.8% since last year.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
FOSSA2.3%
Snyk10.9%
Black Duck SCA9.0%
Other77.8%
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing4.3%
Veracode10.7%
Checkmarx One8.5%
Other76.5%
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 suggests solutions for dependency mismatches."
"The scalability is excellent."
"FOSSA is well worth the investment; it is an opportunity to scale your operations, especially for a legal team to maintain pace with your technical teams in a cost-efficient way."
"It reduced the duration and the effort required to identify open-source licensing issues."
"Prior to a Puppet Enterprise release, it would take approximately two to three weeks of dedicated engineering time by a single release engineer to go through license compliance, and we just did a release in late July or early August, and with FOSSA our license compliance review took five to ten minutes."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer tells us if there are any security leaks or not. If there are, then it's notifying us and does not allow us to pass the DevOps pipeline. If it is finds everything's perfect, as per our given guidelines, then it is allowing us to go ahead and start it, and we are able to deploy it."
"My initial setup of Fortify Static Code Analyzer was good."
"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."
"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."
"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."
"The stability of the solution is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches."
 

Cons

"While running a FOSSA scan, it takes time for the results to reflect in the FOSSA UI portal."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"For open-source management, FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine is easy to use, but the list of licenses is not as complete as we would like it to be. They should add more open-source licenses to the selection."
"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."
"If you have thousands of applications, organizing them all into teams or tags is challenging."
"I have not seen a return on investment with Fortify Static Code Analyzer."
"The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified."
"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."
"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."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"The pricing is a bit high. It would be nice if it was more competitive."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"The product shows false positives for Python applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's cost is a five out of ten."
"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."
"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."
"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."
"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."
"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."
"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."
"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."
"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."
"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."
"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
 

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 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 advice do you have for others considering FOSSA?
For those seeking to ensure their application is updated with the latest features, FOSSA can be a beneficial add-on. However, it should not replace your existing primary security solutions such as ...
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 Snyk, Veracode, Black Duck and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA). Updated: October 2026.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.