Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

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

HCL AppScan
Ranking in Application Security Tools
15th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
13th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 2.4%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.6%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.6%
HCL AppScan2.4%
Other94.0%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

AnshulTomar - PeerSpot reviewer
Scalable platform with efficient static and dynamic testing features
We use the product for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). By integrating AppScan into our CI/CD pipelines, aligned with Agile methodologies, we ensure that security testing becomes an integral part of the software development lifecycle The…
Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis
Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"It provides a better integration for our ecosystem."
"This is a stable solution."
"I like the recording feature."
"The platform has valuable security features, helping us identify sensitive code issues and the possibility of internal applications' exposure to external threats."
"It was easy to set up."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
 

Cons

"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"I think being able to search across more containers, especially some of the docker elements. We need a little tighter integration there. That's the only thing I can see at this point."
"It's a little bit basic when you talk about the Web Services. If AppScan improved its maturity on Web Services testing, that would be good."
"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"It has crashed at times."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as password exposure."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high. HCL AppScan is an expensive tool."
"The price of HCL AppScan is okay, in my opinion. You just buy HCL AppScan and don't pay anything anymore, meaning it is just a one-time purchase."
"I would rate the product's pricing a nine out of ten. The product's pricing is expensive compared to the features that they offer."
"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."
"The product has premium pricing and could be more competitive."
"Pricing was the main reason that we went ahead with this solution as they were the lowest in the market."
"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"The price is very expensive."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise43
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about HCL AppScan?
The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase.
What needs improvement with HCL AppScan?
AppScan needs to improve its handling of false positives. It also requires enhancements in customer support, similar to what Veracode provides. Regularly scheduling calls with clients to discuss fe...
What is your primary use case for HCL AppScan?
The primary use case for AppScan is for security purposes. I compare AppScan with other tools such as Veracode. We use AppScan for vulnerability detection and auto-remediation of vulnerabilities wi...
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?
There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as passw...
 

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2025.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.