GitGuardian Platform vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

GitGuardian Platform vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Download the complete report

Helped 869,202 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

GitGuardian Platform

Ranking in DevSecOps

3rd

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (9th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (5th), Software Supply Chain Security (6th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (3rd)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in DevSecOps

8th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 4.3%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 5.8%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
GitGuardian Platform	4.3%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	5.8%
Other	89.9%

DevSecOps

Featured Reviews

Ney Roman

DevOps Engineer at Deuna App

Facilitates efficient secret management and improves development processes

Regarding the exceptions in GitGuardian Platform, we know that within the platform we have a way to accept a path or a directory from a repository, but it is not that visible at the very beginning. You have to figure out where to search for it, and once you have it, it is really good, but it is not that visible at the beginning. This should be made more exposed. The documentation could be better because it was not that comprehensively documented. When we started working with GitGuardian Platform, it was difficult to find some specific use cases, and we were not aware of that. It might have improved now, but at that time, it was not something we would recommend.

Read full review

Navin N

Global ISO 27001 Program Lead at DXC Technology

Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution

We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this. Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

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

"GitGuardian public leak detection significantly enhances our organization's data security by continuously monitoring public repositories."

"The secrets detection and alerting is the most important feature. We get alerted almost immediately after someone commits a secret. It has been very accurate, allowing us to jump on it right away, then figure out if we have something substantial that has been leaked or whether it is something that we don't have to worry about. This general main feature of the app is great."

"GitGuardian Internal Monitoring has helped increase our secrets detection rate by several orders of magnitude. This is a hard metric to get. For example, if we knew what our secrets were and where they were, we wouldn't need GitGuardian or these types of solutions. There could be a million more secrets that GitGuardian doesn't detect, but it is basically impossible to find them by searching for them."

"The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."

"GitGuardian has pretty broad detection capabilities. It covers all of the types of secrets that we've been interested in... [Yet] The "detector" concept, which identifies particular categories or types of secrets, allows an organization to tweak and tailor the configuration for things that are specific to its environment. This is highly useful if you're particularly worried about a certain type of secret and it can help focus attention, as part of early remediation efforts."

"The majority of our incidents for critical detectors and important secret types are remediated automatically or proactively by developers through GitGuardian's notification system, without security team involvement."

"The most valuable feature is the alerts when secrets are leaked and we can look at particular repositories to see if there are any outstanding problems. In addition, the solution's detection capabilities seem very broad. We have no concerns there."

"It actually creates an incident ticket for us. We can now go end-to-end after a secret has been identified, to track down who owns the repository and who is responsible for cleaning it up."

More GitGuardian Platform pros

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

"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."

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."

"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

"The solution is easy to use."

"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."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."

"The documentation could be improved because when we started working with GitGuardian, it was difficult to find specific use cases."

"There is room for improvement in its integration for bug-tracking. It should be more direct. They have invested a lot in user management, but they need to invest in integrations. That is a real lack."

"If a developer commits code into their repo, it generates an alert. The alert comes into Slack, but by the time someone looks at it through the Slack alerting channel, the developer might have gone and already fixed or closed the issue. There's no sort of feedback loop to come back into the notification channel to show that it's been addressed."

"The analytics in GitGuardian Platform have a significant opportunity to better reflect the value provided to security teams and demonstrate actual activity occurring. While the self-healing capability and proactive developer actions are important features, the analytics do not provide information around this activity."

"There are some features that are lacking in GitGuardian. The more we grow and the more engineers we have, the more it will become difficult to assign an incident because the assignment is not automatic. I know they are working on that and we are waiting for it."

"The analytics in GitGuardian Platform have a significant opportunity to better reflect the value provided to security teams and demonstrate actual activity occurring."

"They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers."

More GitGuardian Platform cons

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"The scanner could be better."

"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."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I compared the solution to a couple of other solutions, and I think it is very competitively priced."

"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."

"You get what you pay for. It's one of the more expensive solutions, but it is very good, and the low false positive rate is a really appealing factor."

"The internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."

"It could be cheaper. When GitHub secrets monitoring solution goes to general access and general availability, GitGuardian might be in a little bit of trouble from the competition, and maybe then they might lower their prices. The GitGuardian solution is great. I'm just concerned that they're not GitHub."

"It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are very happy with the value we get."

"I am only aware of the base price. I do not know what happened with our purchasing team in discussions with GitGuardian. I was not privy to the overall contract, but in terms of the base MSRP price, I found it reasonable."

"The pricing for GitGuardian is fair."

More GitGuardian Platform pricing and cost advice

"This solution is very expensive."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"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."

"The price is okay."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

869,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Government

19%

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

16%

Government

15%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.

What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives. We utilize the automated playbooks from GitGuardian Platform, and we are enhancing them. We will pr...

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...

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs GitGuardian Platform

Comparisons

Compared 18% of the time

Snyk vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 17% of the time

SafeGuard Cyber Security vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 15% of the time

Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 13% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 12% of the time

More GitGuardian Platform Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 18% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 11% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

GitGuardian Platform

Download GitGuardian Platform product report

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Also Known As

GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

GitGuardian is an advanced secrets security platform that strengthens Non-Human Identity security and ensures compliance with industry standards by detecting and managing secrets in development environments.

GitGuardian integrates Secrets Security and Secrets Observability, facilitating the detection of compromised secrets and managing legitimate secrets' lifecycle. Supporting over 450 types of secrets, the platform offers public monitoring for leaked data and employs honeytokens as an added defense. Trusted by over 600,000 developers, organizations such as Snowflake and ING rely on GitGuardian for robust secrets protection.

What features define GitGuardian?

Internal Monitoring: Tracks confidential data like IDs and tokens.
Dev in the Loop: Rapid alerts for leaks.
Detection Capabilities: High accuracy with a low false-positive rate.
Integrations: Supports seamless integration with multiple platforms.
Customized Detectors: Offers tailored security solutions.
Multi-Vault Support: Facilitates efficient issue management.

What are the key benefits when evaluating GitGuardian?

Comprehensive Detection: Identifies AWS keys and other hardcoded secrets.
Efficient Remediation: Swiftly resolves issues.
Improved Security: Prevents accidental leaks of sensitive data.
Seamless Integration: Compatible with platforms like GitHub and Azure DevOps.

In sectors like healthcare and telecommunications, GitGuardian is implemented for detecting and managing the exposure of sensitive information in code repositories. Teams benefit from its ability to integrate with platforms such as GitHub, allowing for immediate alerts and efficient remediation of security risks, enhancing application security by safeguarding operational environments.

GitGuardian

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by over 600 thousand developers and leading companies, including Snowflake, Orange, Iress, Mirantis, Maven Wave, ING, BASF, and Bouygues Telecom.

Aaron's

GitGuardian Platform vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing