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

NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Rapid7 and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Additionally, 100% of Rapid7 users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
OpenText Core Application S...
Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews
  • 6,712 Views
  • 4,967 Comparison Views
90% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] compete in the application security domain. OpenText is preferred for support and pricing, while NTOSpider [EOL] stands out for its comprehensive features.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security offers advanced vulnerability scanning, real-time threat detection, and strong security measures. NTOSpider [EOL] provides automated dynamic testing, broad attack simulation, and extensive testing capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides an intuitive deployment process and proactive support, whereas NTOSpider [EOL] has a complex deployment with premium support packages for enhanced assistance.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core presents competitive initial costs with substantial ROI through effective threat mitigation. NTOSpider [EOL] has higher setup costs but delivers value by potentially lowering long-term vulnerability expenses.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Application Security Tools Report (Updated: February 2026).
Buyer's Guide
Application Security Tools
February 2026
Download the complete report
Helped 885,376 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

NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL]
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (13th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user245400 - PeerSpot reviewer
it_user245400
Application Security Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
There were some incompatibility issues, but it's a fairly stable product.
The ability to exploit injection capabilities It has enabled me to develop a more comprehensive SDLC. The vulnerability mapping needs some work. I've been using it for one year alongside Rapid7. There were some incompatibility issues after a Windows update where the NTO consumed all the…
Read full review
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Himanshu_Tyagi
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security 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

"It has enabled me to develop a more comprehensive SDLC."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"Fortify supports most languages, integrates with lots of tools, and has API support, whereas other tools are limited to typical languages and IBM's solutions are not flexible enough to support any language."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"This solution has helped us to improve our security processes."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions."
More OpenText Core Application Security pros
 

Cons

"There were some incompatibility issues after a Windows update where the NTO consumed all the available RAM."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"Reporting could be improved. It would nice to export to an Excel sheet or another spreadsheet."
"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."
"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"I would advise others not to use Fortify, but rather get something like Veracode or Checkmarx."
More OpenText Core Application Security cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"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."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
See all answers
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...
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. T...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

No data available
SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 19% of the time
Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 9% of the time
Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 5% of the time
Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 5% of the time
GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 4% of the time
More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Application Security Tools
February 2026
NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] reportDownload NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Core Application Security
March 2026
OpenText Core Application Security reportDownload OpenText Core Application Security product report
 

Also Known As

NTOSpider
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

While today's malicious attackers pursue a variety of goals, they share a preferred channel of attack - the millions of custom web, mobile, and cloud applications companies deploy to serve their customers. NTOSpider dynamically scans these applications for vulnerabilities across all modern technologies, provides tools that speed remediation and monitors applications for changes.
Rapid7

OpenText Core Application Security offers robust features like static and dynamic scanning, real-time vulnerability tracking, and seamless integration with development platforms, designed to enhance code security and reduce operational costs.

OpenText Core Application Security is a cloud-based, on-demand service providing accurate and deep scanning capabilities with detailed reporting. Its integrations with development platforms ensure an enhanced security layer in the development lifecycle, benefiting users by lowering operational costs and facilitating efficient remediation. The platform addresses needs for intuitive interfaces, API support, and comprehensive vulnerability assessments, helping improve code security and accelerate time-to-market. Despite its strengths, challenges exist around false positives, report clarity, and language support, alongside confusing pricing and package options. Enhancements are sought in areas like CI/CD pipeline configuration, report visualization, scan times, and integration with third-party tools such as GitLab, container scanning, and software composition analysis.

What features define OpenText Core Application Security?
  • Static and Dynamic Scanning: Offers thorough analysis to identify vulnerabilities during development.
  • Real-time Vulnerability Tracking: Continuously updates and monitors potential security threats.
  • Seamless Development Platform Integration: Enhances security processes without disrupting workflows.
  • Cloud-Based Service: Provides flexible, on-demand security capabilities with accurate results.
  • API Support: Allows smooth integration and automation within existing systems.
What benefits should users look for in reviews?
  • Reduced Operational Costs: Optimizes resources by lowering costs associated with security management.
  • Efficient Remediation: Speeds up the process of identifying and resolving vulnerabilities.
  • Enhanced Code Security: Strengthens overall application security during the development lifecycle.
  • Accelerated Time-to-Market: Streamlines development stages by integrating essential security tools.

Industries like mobile applications, e-commerce, and banking leverage OpenText Core Application Security for its ability to identify vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. Integrating seamlessly with DevSecOps and security auditing processes, this tool supports developers in writing safer code, ensuring secure application deployment and enhancing software assurance.

OpenText
 

Sample Customers

University of Salzburg, Chr. Hansen, American Chemical Society, North American Retail Chain, Wiltshire Council, Redner's Markets, Acosta Sales & Marketing
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Buyer's Guide
Application Security Tools
February 2026
Download Free Report
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: February 2026.
DOWNLOAD NOW
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.