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

Top 10 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Alternatives

Vendor: OpenText
3.6 out of 5
Badge Leader
136 followers
Start review

Top OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include GitLab, Snyk, and Checkmarx One. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing surpasses its competitors by providing comprehensive real-time threat detection and seamless integration with development workflows, ensuring robust protection and continuous improvement in application security.

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 Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
GitLab
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
GitLab
4.3 out of 5
OpenText offers focused security testing and effective vulnerability analysis. In comparison, GitLab integrates security within its DevOps ecosystem, enhancing team collaboration. Tech buyers may choose OpenText for specialized security or GitLab for its all-in-one development and deployment features.
Download GitLab vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing involves higher initial setup costs compared to GitLab. GitLab provides a more budget-friendly option with lower upfront expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing involves higher initial setup costs compared to GitLab. GitLab provides a more budget-friendly option with lower upfront expenses.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Snyk
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Snyk
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing appeals for its cost-effective pricing and comprehensive support. In comparison, Snyk offers real-time scanning and seamless integration, providing long-term ROI despite higher pricing. Tech buyers might select based on budget constraints or advanced feature requirements.
Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. Snyk Report
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers a more comprehensive setup process compared to Snyk which provides a straightforward initial configuration. The contrast in setup cost highlights differences in complexity and ease of deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers a more comprehensive setup process compared to Snyk which provides a straightforward initial configuration. The contrast in setup cost highlights differences in complexity and ease of deployment.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Checkmarx One
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Checkmarx One
3.8 out of 5
Checkmarx One excels in ease of use and integration without code compilation. In comparison, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers detailed vulnerability detection across various file types, making it suitable for scenarios that require comprehensive coverage.
Download Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
Checkmarx One has no upfront setup costs, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing requires initial fees. This contrast highlights Checkmarx One's potential for lower initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Checkmarx One has no upfront setup costs, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing requires initial fees. This contrast highlights Checkmarx One's potential for lower initial investment.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Acunetix
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Acunetix
3.9 out of 5
Acunetix offers extensive scanning features and flexible deployment, making it ideal for those seeking detailed vulnerability insights. In comparison, OpenText, while robust, may offer less adaptable pricing and is considered less intuitive. Each solution caters to distinct security needs and preferences.
Download Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
Acunetix offers a straightforward setup process, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing features a more involved initial configuration, highlighting distinct cost implications and usability experiences.
View comparison
Pricing
Acunetix offers a straightforward setup process, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing features a more involved initial configuration, highlighting distinct cost implications and usability experiences.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Aqua Cloud Security Platform
4.0 out of 5
Aqua Cloud Security Platform excels in container security with seamless DevOps integration. In comparison, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing provides detailed application scanning, making it favorable for thorough vulnerability assessments, especially for enterprises prioritizing comprehensive security features and personalized support in complex environments.
Download Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
Aqua Cloud Security Platform offers a more cost-effective setup compared to OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which has a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Aqua Cloud Security Platform offers a more cost-effective setup compared to OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which has a higher initial investment.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
HCL AppScan
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
HCL AppScan
3.9 out of 5
HCL AppScan excels with customizable scans and seamless integration into continuous development, appealing to developers needing detailed vulnerability detection. In comparison, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust web vulnerability scanning and is ideal for enterprises seeking comprehensive coverage with solid cloud integration.
Download HCL AppScan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
HCL AppScan has a lower initial setup cost, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing may require a higher investment.
View comparison
Pricing
HCL AppScan has a lower initial setup cost, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing may require a higher investment.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Invicti
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Invicti
4.1 out of 5
Invicti attracts tech buyers due to its competitive pricing and efficient support. In comparison, OpenText lures those seeking comprehensive feature integration through deep security capabilities, making it ideal for enterprises requiring extensive setup despite a potentially higher initial cost.
Download Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
Invicti offers lower setup costs, making it a cost-effective choice, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing has a higher setup cost, highlighting a potentially larger investment for implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
Invicti offers lower setup costs, making it a cost-effective choice, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing has a higher setup cost, highlighting a potentially larger investment for implementation.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Rapid7 InsightAppSec
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing attracts tech buyers with comprehensive vulnerability detection and workflow integration. In comparison, Rapid7 InsightAppSec impresses with advanced analytics and automation. OpenText is cost-effective, while Rapid7 offers substantial long-term ROI and a streamlined deployment process.
Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec Report
The setup cost for OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is competitive, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec offers a more budget-friendly option.
View comparison
Pricing
The setup cost for OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is competitive, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec offers a more budget-friendly option.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition
4.0 out of 5
OpenText attracts budget-conscious buyers with competitive pricing and strong support. In comparison, PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition appeals to tech buyers seeking advanced features and flexible deployment, offering a worthwhile investment despite higher costs.
Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition Report
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing typically involves upfront expenses for setup, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition offers a more cost-effective initial setup, highlighting a significant distinction in the onboarding process between these security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing typically involves upfront expenses for setup, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition offers a more cost-effective initial setup, highlighting a significant distinction in the onboarding process between these security solutions.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
WhiteHat Dynamic
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
WhiteHat Dynamic
4.0 out of 5
WhiteHat Dynamic offers solid real-time tracking and user-friendly reports with easy deployment and strong support. In comparison, OpenText provides automated scanning and threat intelligence, excelling in feature richness and scalability, appealing to those needing comprehensive detection and willing to invest in extensive features.
WhiteHat Dynamic offers a lower setup cost, appealing to cost-conscious businesses, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing presents a higher upfront investment, aimed at feature-rich solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
WhiteHat Dynamic offers a lower setup cost, appealing to cost-conscious businesses, while OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing presents a higher upfront investment, aimed at feature-rich solutions.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Check Point CloudGuard Code Security
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers comprehensive vulnerability scanning and integrates with DevOps tools, appealing to enterprises seeking affordability. In comparison, Check Point CloudGuard Code Security provides advanced cloud-native features and scalability across multi-cloud platforms, attracting businesses prioritizing flexible, robust cloud security solutions.
Download Check Point CloudGuard Code Security vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing has a comparatively higher setup cost than Check Point CloudGuard Code Security, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment for streamlined deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing has a comparatively higher setup cost than Check Point CloudGuard Code Security, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment for streamlined deployment.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Appknox
1 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
Appknox
1 out of 5
OpenText offers strong integrations, scalable solutions, and exceptional customer support, ideal for flexible deployment and cost-effective security testing. In comparison, Appknox delivers advanced automation and real-time threat detection, with a straightforward deployment process, catering to those needing comprehensive security assessments and in-depth analysis.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing requires higher upfront setup costs, while Appknox offers a more cost-effective setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing requires higher upfront setup costs, while Appknox offers a more cost-effective setup option.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
StackHawk
1 out of 5
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Logo
StackHawk
1 out of 5
OpenText DAST excels in comprehensive vulnerability scanning suitable for enterprises needing extensive features and support. In comparison, StackHawk's modern API integrations and developer-friendly interface cater to continuous development environments, delivering rapid deployment and effective customer interaction with a cost-effective pricing model.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing involves a higher setup cost, while StackHawk offers a more budget-friendly setup option, highlighting a significant cost difference between the two security testing solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing involves a higher setup cost, while StackHawk offers a more budget-friendly setup option, highlighting a significant cost difference between the two security testing solutions.

Related categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
DevSecOps
Application Security Tools