Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
OpenText Core Application Security Logo

Top 10 OpenText Core Application Security Alternatives

Vendor: OpenText
4.0 out of 5
3,478 followers
Start review

Top OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Core Application Security based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube), GitLab, and Snyk. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Core Application Security surpasses its competitors by offering advanced threat detection, real-time monitoring, intuitive user interface, and seamless integration capabilities that ensure comprehensive protection and improve overall application performance.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels in compliance, rapid testing, and vulnerability tracking, making it ideal for security-focused environments. In comparison, SonarQube Server, with extensive language support and customizable profiles, appeals to those prioritizing code analysis and open-source flexibility.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while SonarQube Server requires a more complex configuration process.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while SonarQube Server requires a more complex configuration process.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitLab
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitLab
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Core excels in application security with expert-reviewed results and robust vulnerability management, appealing to enterprises needing compliance. In comparison, GitLab attracts tech buyers with its strong CI/CD support and integration with DevOps tools, suiting collaborative development environments seeking flexibility and cloud orientation.
Download GitLab vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security typically involves a higher setup cost, while GitLab provides more budget-friendly options, catering to different budgetary needs for organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security typically involves a higher setup cost, while GitLab provides more budget-friendly options, catering to different budgetary needs for organizations.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Snyk
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Snyk
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers extensive features, suitable for organizations seeking detailed compliance guidance. In comparison, Snyk provides seamless integration and simplicity, ideal for developers needing effective vulnerability management. Both solutions cater to different budget and feature requirements, ensuring a strong security posture.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Snyk Report
OpenText Core Application Security typically involves a substantial setup cost, whereas Snyk offers a more straightforward setup with less financial investment. This distinction makes Snyk potentially more attractive for organizations seeking a cost-effective security solution.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security typically involves a substantial setup cost, whereas Snyk offers a more straightforward setup with less financial investment. This distinction makes Snyk potentially more attractive for organizations seeking a cost-effective security solution.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Checkmarx One
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Checkmarx One
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels in SAST and DAST features, while Checkmarx One provides incremental scanning and reduced false positives. In comparison, OpenText supports diverse deployment, and Checkmarx One provides excellent DevOps integration. Both offer extensive security solutions with differing language support needs.
Download Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security typically entails higher setup costs, while Checkmarx One offers a more economical setup process, highlighting a key cost difference for users to consider.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security typically entails higher setup costs, while Checkmarx One offers a more economical setup process, highlighting a key cost difference for users to consider.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Veracode
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Veracode
4.1 out of 5
Veracode impresses with ease of use, extensive integrations, and wide cloud deployment options, though it can be costly with frequent false positives. In comparison, OpenText excels in DevOps security integration and competitive pricing but desires improvements in dynamic testing and UI sophistication.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Veracode Report
Veracode offers a higher setup cost compared to OpenText Core Application Security, highlighting a key difference in their pricing structures. OpenText may be more appealing for those seeking a lower upfront investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Veracode offers a higher setup cost compared to OpenText Core Application Security, highlighting a key difference in their pricing structures. OpenText may be more appealing for those seeking a lower upfront investment.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Coverity
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Coverity
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels in cloud-based deployment and DevOps integration. In comparison, Coverity emphasizes the Checker for security bug identification. Core is flexible in pricing, while Coverity focuses on compliance benefits. Core supports diverse cloud options; Coverity targets on-premises deployment primarily.
Download Coverity vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security shows a higher initial setup cost, while Coverity offers lower setup expenses, highlighting a key difference in their pricing.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security shows a higher initial setup cost, while Coverity offers lower setup expenses, highlighting a key difference in their pricing.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Mend.io
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Mend.io
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security provides robust real-time testing and aligns well with compliance needs. In comparison, Mend.io excels in open-source vulnerability detection and governance. OpenText Core is favored for in-depth security insights, while Mend.io stands out for detailed reporting and container security.
Download Mend.io vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a cost-effective initial setup, while Mend.io requires a higher upfront investment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a cost-effective initial setup, while Mend.io requires a higher upfront investment.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OWASP Zap
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OWASP Zap
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers enterprise-grade features like expert-reviewed results and CI/CD integration. In comparison, OWASP Zap provides open-source benefits with efficient scanning and community support. Tech buyers might choose OpenText for tailored security or Zap for cost-effectiveness.
Download OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security requires a higher setup cost, while OWASP Zap offers a more budget-friendly option, highlighting a significant cost difference for users to consider when choosing between these two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security requires a higher setup cost, while OWASP Zap offers a more budget-friendly option, highlighting a significant cost difference for users to consider when choosing between these two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud)
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers detailed vulnerability guidance and robust security testing. In comparison, SonarQube Cloud excels in CI/CD integration and cost efficiency. A tech buyer may choose OpenText for its comprehensive support or SonarQube for its competitive pricing and productivity focus.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup with no initial costs, while SonarQube Cloud involves setup expenses, highlighting a primary contrast between the two solutions.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup with no initial costs, while SonarQube Cloud involves setup expenses, highlighting a primary contrast between the two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitHub Advanced Security
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers extensive feature integration, appealing to organizations seeking comprehensive security control. In comparison, GitHub Advanced Security's seamless workflow integration and customization make it attractive for development teams prioritizing efficient tool integration within established practices.
Download GitHub Advanced Security vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security requires a considerable setup cost, whereas GitHub Advanced Security offers a more budget-friendly setup. This pricing distinction highlights a significant cost difference between the two security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security requires a considerable setup cost, whereas GitHub Advanced Security offers a more budget-friendly setup. This pricing distinction highlights a significant cost difference between the two security solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Sonatype Lifecycle
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Sonatype Lifecycle
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers quick compliance and a wide range of scanning types fitting CI/CD pipelines. In comparison, Sonatype Lifecycle provides robust open-source component management and real-time vulnerability updates, ideal for enterprises focusing on comprehensive open-source security.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Sonatype Lifecycle Report
OpenText Core Application Security features a straightforward setup with competitive pricing, while Sonatype Lifecycle offers a more robust flexibility with a higher setup cost, making the latter more suitable for complex integration needs that justify the investment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security features a straightforward setup with competitive pricing, while Sonatype Lifecycle offers a more robust flexibility with a higher setup cost, making the latter more suitable for complex integration needs that justify the investment.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Acunetix
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Acunetix
3.9 out of 5
Acunetix attracts tech buyers with competitive pricing despite recent increases, offering efficient vulnerability identification and remediation. In comparison, OpenText Core Application Security, with higher pricing, justifies costs through robust features and integration capabilities, appealing to those seeking comprehensive application security enhancements.
Download Acunetix vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
Acunetix has an upfront setup cost advantage, whereas OpenText Core Application Security may involve more initial investment. These cost differences highlight the varying financial considerations between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Acunetix has an upfront setup cost advantage, whereas OpenText Core Application Security may involve more initial investment. These cost differences highlight the varying financial considerations between the two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
HCL AppScan
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
HCL AppScan
3.9 out of 5
HCL AppScan excels in cost savings and dynamic XSS detection, while integrating seamlessly into agile processes. In comparison, OpenText Core Application Security provides advanced AI features and vulnerability management with comprehensive DevOps integration, appealing to those prioritizing centralized control and seamless security solutions.
Download HCL AppScan vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
HCL AppScan has a straightforward setup cost, whereas OpenText Core Application Security shows a more flexible pricing structure.
View comparison
Pricing
HCL AppScan has a straightforward setup cost, whereas OpenText Core Application Security shows a more flexible pricing structure.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional
4.3 out of 5
Burp Suite Professional appeals with its affordability, auto-scanning, and extensibility for penetration testing. In comparison, OpenText Core, though costlier, offers robust integration and comprehensive reporting, making it suitable for enterprises prioritizing strong DevSecOps alignment and detailed analysis.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Report
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional offers a straightforward setup process with a moderate initial cost, while OpenText Core Application Security provides a more complex setup with potentially higher expenses. Each solution caters to different preferences based on initial investment and...
View comparison
Pricing
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional offers a straightforward setup process with a moderate initial cost, while OpenText Core Application Security provides a more complex setup with potentially higher expenses. Each solution caters to different preferences based on initial investment and...
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Qualys Web Application Scanning
3.9 out of 5
Qualys excels in cloud deployment and efficiency with minimal false positives and CI/CD integration. In comparison, OpenText Core emphasizes thorough scanning and early vulnerability detection. Qualys suits those seeking strong integration, while OpenText appeals to buyers prioritizing detailed assessments and cost-effective options.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning Report
Qualys Web Application Scanning has a straightforward setup cost, while OpenText Core Application Security offers more flexibility in pricing structure. Qualys appeals to users seeking transparency, whereas OpenText provides options catering to diverse financial requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
Qualys Web Application Scanning has a straightforward setup cost, while OpenText Core Application Security offers more flexibility in pricing structure. Qualys appeals to users seeking transparency, whereas OpenText provides options catering to diverse financial requirements.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Klocwork
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Klocwork
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers cloud-based flexibility with integrated SAST and DAST, enhancing security visibility and ROI. In comparison, Klocwork excels in static analysis with IDE integration, providing competitive pricing and ease-of-use for pre-deployment vulnerability detection.
Download Klocwork vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security requires more upfront setup costs compared to Klocwork. Klocwork offers a lower initial investment, appealing to budget-conscious users seeking cost-effective solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security requires more upfront setup costs compared to Klocwork. Klocwork offers a lower initial investment, appealing to budget-conscious users seeking cost-effective solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitHub
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitHub
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security provides detailed priority guidance and compliance focus, integrating well with enterprises needing robust application security. In comparison, GitHub supports source code management for collaborative environments, offering ease of code versioning and cost-effective solutions suitable for diverse development teams.
Download GitHub vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has an uncomplicated setup with no upfront costs, while GitHub requires a minimal setup fee, highlighting OpenText's cost efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has an uncomplicated setup with no upfront costs, while GitHub requires a minimal setup fee, highlighting OpenText's cost efficiency.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Invicti
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Invicti
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers robust guidance and seamless workflow integration, valuable for organizations needing comprehensive vulnerability tracking. In comparison, Invicti's proof-based scanning and CI/CD integration cater to DevOps environments, appealing to tech buyers seeking reduced false positives and enhanced automation.
Download Invicti vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a higher initial setup cost, while Invicti offers a more affordable setup process. This pricing distinction highlights the difference in initial financial investment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a higher initial setup cost, while Invicti offers a more affordable setup process. This pricing distinction highlights the difference in initial financial investment between the two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Tenable.io Web Application Scanning
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers robust static and dynamic scanning with manual reviews, excelling in integration flexibility and detailed guidance. In comparison, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is applauded for accurate vulnerability mapping and reliable results, offering a competitive pricing model and user-friendly setup.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning Report
OpenText Core Application Security setup cost is competitive, while Tenable.io offers a straightforward setup process. Tenable.io's pricing may be higher; however, it compensates with comprehensive scanning features that differentiate it from OpenText.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security setup cost is competitive, while Tenable.io offers a straightforward setup process. Tenable.io's pricing may be higher; however, it compensates with comprehensive scanning features that differentiate it from OpenText.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Semgrep
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Semgrep
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels in integration and customer service for enterprises, delivering a cost-effective approach. In comparison, Semgrep offers advanced analytics and flexibility, appealing to developers seeking adaptable code scanning, potentially providing long-term value despite higher initial costs.
OpenText Core Application Security typically involves higher initial setup costs, while Semgrep tends to offer a more economical setup. These cost differences highlight variations in initial implementation expenses, impacting budget considerations based on current financial priorities.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security typically involves higher initial setup costs, while Semgrep tends to offer a more economical setup. These cost differences highlight variations in initial implementation expenses, impacting budget considerations based on current financial priorities.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Polyspace Code Prover
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers flexible pricing and robust integration, ideal for businesses seeking comprehensive vulnerability management. In comparison, Polyspace Code Prover is selected for its advanced analytical features and thorough code verification, justifying its premium pricing with significant long-term ROI.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while Polyspace Code Prover involves more complex pricing, highlighting a key difference in initial financial investment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while Polyspace Code Prover involves more complex pricing, highlighting a key difference in initial financial investment between the two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitGuardian Platform
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security provides manual oversight and broad testing integration, attracting those needing comprehensive management. In comparison, GitGuardian excels in secret detection with real-time monitoring, appealing to buyers focused on reducing false positives and enhancing sensitive data protection.
Download GitGuardian Platform vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has higher setup costs, while GitGuardian Platform is more affordable, emphasizing a clear cost difference.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has higher setup costs, while GitGuardian Platform is more affordable, emphasizing a clear cost difference.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing, offering data-driven testing and broad integration capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Core Application Security specializes in robust application security with effective scans. Parasoft appeals to those prioritizing API functionality, while OpenText suits buyers focused on security enhancement.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest requires a substantial initial setup investment, while OpenText Core Application Security offers a more cost-effective setup. The pricing structures reflect significant differences in initial deployment costs, impacting budgeting and financial planning.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest requires a substantial initial setup investment, while OpenText Core Application Security offers a more cost-effective setup. The pricing structures reflect significant differences in initial deployment costs, impacting budgeting and financial planning.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Kiuwan
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Kiuwan
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers comprehensive scanning and integration in CI/CD pipelines. In comparison, Kiuwan's modular approach and rapid scanning speed contribute to faster feedback cycles. OpenText excels in centralized management, while Kiuwan's real-time analytics aid agile development processes.
Download Kiuwan vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security offers a competitive setup cost, while Kiuwan provides a more budget-friendly option. The differences highlight Kiuwan's affordability in comparison to OpenText Core's potentially higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security offers a competitive setup cost, while Kiuwan provides a more budget-friendly option. The differences highlight Kiuwan's affordability in comparison to OpenText Core's potentially higher initial investment.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Contrast Security Assess
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers scalability and integration, appealing to cost-conscious buyers with its affordability. In comparison, Contrast Security Assess provides advanced vulnerability detection and streamlined deployment, justifying its higher cost for those prioritizing enhanced features and seamless development pipeline integration.
Download Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security features a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, whereas Contrast Security Assess may involve higher setup costs, highlighting a significant distinction in their initial investment requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security features a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, whereas Contrast Security Assess may involve higher setup costs, highlighting a significant distinction in their initial investment requirements.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
ImmuniWeb
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
ImmuniWeb
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers affordability and strong support, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, ImmuniWeb’s advanced AI-driven insights and automation could attract those seeking deeper security analytics, despite higher costs. This positions each as suitable for different organizational needs.
Download ImmuniWeb vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security offers a higher setup cost, whereas ImmuniWeb provides a more budget-friendly initial setup. Notably, each solution presents distinct pricing strategies tailored towards different market segments.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security offers a higher setup cost, whereas ImmuniWeb provides a more budget-friendly initial setup. Notably, each solution presents distinct pricing strategies tailored towards different market segments.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Contrast Security Protect
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security draws tech buyers with its competitive pricing and robust support. In comparison, Contrast Security Protect focuses on feature-rich capabilities like real-time threat detection. OpenText appeals to budget-focused buyers, while Contrast suits those prioritizing advanced long-term security features.
Download Contrast Security Protect vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while Contrast Security Protect requires a more detailed initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while Contrast Security Protect requires a more detailed initial setup.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Synopsys Software Risk Manager
1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security attracts tech buyers with streamlined integration and cost-effectiveness, ideal for smaller enterprises. In comparison, Synopsys Software Risk Manager offers advanced analytics and in-depth capabilities, appealing to organizations focusing on comprehensive security solutions despite a higher initial investment.
OpenText Core Application Security has a higher setup cost compared to Synopsys Software Risk Manager, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment. The difference in upfront costs may impact the decision-making process for budget-conscious organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a higher setup cost compared to Synopsys Software Risk Manager, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment. The difference in upfront costs may impact the decision-making process for budget-conscious organizations.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Spirent CyberFlood
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Spirent CyberFlood
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers robust threat detection and easy integration, appealing to those prioritizing seamless ecosystem fit and responsive support. In comparison, Spirent CyberFlood's exceptional scalability and advanced simulation capabilities cater to those seeking comprehensive security testing with high ROI.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Spirent CyberFlood Report
OpenText Core Application Security features a straightforward setup with moderate costs, whereas Spirent CyberFlood involves a more complex and expensive setup process, highlighting a significant difference in implementation expenses between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security features a straightforward setup with moderate costs, whereas Spirent CyberFlood involves a more complex and expensive setup process, highlighting a significant difference in implementation expenses between the two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Ixia BreakingPoint
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Ixia BreakingPoint
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels in data management and efficient integration, appealing to those who value ease of deployment and strong support. In comparison, Ixia BreakingPoint attracts buyers seeking advanced network analysis with powerful testing capabilities, despite its complex setup and focused support.
Download Ixia BreakingPoint vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a setup cost that is straightforward and often lower, while Ixia BreakingPoint may involve higher initial expenses, highlighting a cost difference that may impact budget considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a setup cost that is straightforward and often lower, while Ixia BreakingPoint may involve higher initial expenses, highlighting a cost difference that may impact budget considerations.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
GitGuardian Public Monitoring
4.5 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels in vulnerability scanning and integration, ideal for robust internal protection. In comparison, GitGuardian Public Monitoring offers superior external threat detection, appealing to those focused on real-time data leak monitoring and broader external threat coverage through a cloud-native, easy setup.
Download GitGuardian Public Monitoring vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security requires a higher setup cost compared to GitGuardian Public Monitoring, which provides a more affordable initial investment for users.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security requires a higher setup cost compared to GitGuardian Public Monitoring, which provides a more affordable initial investment for users.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Qwiet AI
5.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Qwiet AI
5.0 out of 5
OpenText Core features seamless integration and efficient threat detection, appealing to those valuing strong integration capabilities. In comparison, Qwiet AI excels in intelligent threat analysis and broader coverage, attracting tech buyers seeking advanced features and comprehensive vulnerability management.
OpenText Core Application Security involves considerable setup costs, whereas Qwiet AI offers a more budget-friendly setup. These differences highlight the varying initial investment levels between these application security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security involves considerable setup costs, whereas Qwiet AI offers a more budget-friendly setup. These differences highlight the varying initial investment levels between these application security solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
FortiDevSec
4.5 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
FortiDevSec
4.5 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security attracts teams desiring user-friendly interfaces and cost-effective solutions. In comparison, FortiDevSec offers robust features and seamless integration, appealing to organizations seeking advanced threat intelligence and extensive automation, prioritizing comprehensive security over initial cost savings.
OpenText Core Application Security requires a higher setup cost than FortiDevSec, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security requires a higher setup cost than FortiDevSec, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
NowSecure
3.5 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
NowSecure
3.5 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security appeals to enterprises for its pricing flexibility and integration capabilities. In comparison, NowSecure attracts those needing advanced mobile testing with a focus on vulnerability detection. Each offers tailored value in their respective areas, meeting diverse security needs.
OpenText Core Application Security offers a higher setup cost, while NowSecure provides a more budget-friendly option, significantly impacting initial investment considerations between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security offers a higher setup cost, while NowSecure provides a more budget-friendly option, significantly impacting initial investment considerations between the two solutions.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
DerScanner
1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
DerScanner
1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security excels with user-friendly interfaces and efficient scalability options. In comparison, DerScanner stands out for its comprehensive scanning capabilities and ease of integration, appealing to tech buyers focused on seamless security scanning and integration into existing systems.
OpenText Core Application Security has a high setup cost, while DerScanner offers a more affordable setup cost option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a high setup cost, while DerScanner offers a more affordable setup cost option.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Onapsis
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Onapsis
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security appeals to cost-conscious tech buyers with its efficient support and cloud integration, while Onapsis attracts those needing compliance assurance and SAP protection. In comparison, Onapsis justifies its higher cost with advanced analytics and security depth, catering to specialized needs.
OpenText Core Application Security has a cost-effective setup, while Onapsis demands a higher initial investment. The discrepancy in pricing highlights the difference in focus and target market between the two products.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a cost-effective setup, while Onapsis demands a higher initial investment. The discrepancy in pricing highlights the difference in focus and target market between the two products.
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Semmle QL
1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Semmle QL
1 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security attracts tech buyers with its robust threat detection and straightforward deployment with responsive support. In comparison, Semmle QL's advanced code query language and superior vulnerability insights make it appealing despite complex deployment and higher initial costs, offering significant ROI.
OpenText Core Application Security offers a competitive setup cost, while Semmle QL provides a cost-effective alternative, highlighting a notable price difference.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security offers a competitive setup cost, while Semmle QL provides a cost-effective alternative, highlighting a notable price difference.

Related categories

Application Security Tools
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Development Analytics