Top 10 OpenText Static Application Security Testing Alternatives

4.1 out of 5

19 reviews
89% willing to recommend

Top OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Static Application Security Testing based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Veracode, Mend.io, and Klocwork. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Static Application Security Testing surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive code vulnerability detection, user-friendly interface, and seamless integration capabilities, providing developers with efficient tools to enhance application security and ensure robust protection against potential threats.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Veracode

4.1 out of 5

Veracode

4.1 out of 5

Veracode excels with cloud integration and robust testing capabilities suitable for scalable deployments. In comparison, OpenText SAST, traditionally on-premise, suits organizations preferring such setups, but it requires manual intervention for cloud adaptation. Veracode's pricing reflects its comprehensive features, while OpenText SAST offers bundled cost-efficient solutions.

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs. Veracode Report

Pricing

Veracode's initial setup cost is generally seen as lower than OpenText Static Application Security Testing, with users expressing that Veracode provides a streamlined onboarding process, whereas OpenText requires more resources and time commitment for setup configurations.

View comparison

Pricing

Mend.io

4.2 out of 5

Mend.io

4.2 out of 5

Mend.io offers extensive open-source governance with seamless CI/CD integration, making it ideal for automation-focused teams. In comparison, OpenText supports a broad range of languages and excellent vulnerability tracking, catering to users needing comprehensive integration. Pricing strategies and deployment flexibility further differentiate these solutions.

Download Mend.io vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report

Pricing

Mend.io requires a higher initial setup cost compared to OpenText Static Application Security Testing, which offers a lower entry fee. This difference may affect budget considerations when choosing between these solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Klocwork

4.0 out of 5

Klocwork

4.0 out of 5

Klocwork is valued for integration capabilities, customizable checkers, and real-time defect detection, appealing to cost-conscious organizations. In comparison, OpenText, with advanced vulnerability tracking and extensive language support, caters to large enterprises seeking a thorough security solution, despite its higher cost and complexity.

Download Klocwork vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report

Pricing

Klocwork has a slightly higher initial setup cost, whereas OpenText Static Application Security Testing offers a more budget-friendly setup option, highlighting a cost-effective advantage.

View comparison

Pricing

Klocwork has a slightly higher initial setup cost, whereas OpenText Static Application Security Testing offers a more budget-friendly setup option, highlighting a cost-effective advantage.

CodeSonar

4.1 out of 5

CodeSonar

4.1 out of 5

CodeSonar offers effective static analysis with competitive pricing and responsive support. In comparison, OpenText Static Application Security Testing provides extensive security features and advanced vulnerability detection, justifying its higher cost for those focusing on comprehensive security capabilities.

Download CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report

Pricing

CodeSonar has a lower setup cost compared to OpenText Static Application Security Testing, which may influence budget-focused decisions.

View comparison

Pricing

CodeSonar has a lower setup cost compared to OpenText Static Application Security Testing, which may influence budget-focused decisions.

Semgrep

4.0 out of 5

Semgrep

4.0 out of 5

OpenText offers enterprise-grade deployment and robust reporting, appealing to large organizations needing deep integration. In comparison, Semgrep excels with flexibility and customizable rule sets, making it ideal for agile, cost-sensitive environments requiring fast updates and community-driven enhancements.

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing incurs a higher setup cost compared to Semgrep, which offers a more affordable implementation process.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing incurs a higher setup cost compared to Semgrep, which offers a more affordable implementation process.

ReShaper

4.3 out of 5

ReShaper

4.3 out of 5

OpenText focuses on security vulnerabilities identification, offering comprehensive scanning capabilities to mitigate risks. In comparison, ReShaper enhances coding efficiency with robust analysis and refactoring tools. OpenText's ease of cloud deployment appeals to security-conscious tech buyers, whereas ReShaper attracts those seeking productivity improvements.

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs. ReShaper Report

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing requires a higher setup cost compared to ReShaper, which offers a more economical option. ReShaper stands out for its affordability, while OpenText targets those willing to invest more for advanced security features.

View comparison

Pricing

DeepSource

1 out of 5

DeepSource

1 out of 5

OpenText offers comprehensive security governance with robust compliance management, appealing to buyers prioritizing support and security enhancement. In comparison, DeepSource provides a broader scope with automated onboarding, attracting those seeking modern tools, streamlined deployment, and ongoing value in development efficiency.

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing has higher setup costs compared to DeepSource, highlighting significant cost differences between the two solutions. DeepSource offers a more affordable initial setup, making it a budget-friendly option.

View comparison

Pricing

Codacy

1 out of 5

Codacy

1 out of 5

OpenText Static Application Security Testing excels in security with robust vulnerability detection, appealing to those prioritizing security. In comparison, Codacy offers enhanced flexibility with customizable checks and seamless CI/CD integration, attracting teams focused on adaptability in modern development workflows.

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing requires a high initial setup cost, whereas Codacy has a lower setup cost, making it more budget-friendly for new users.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing requires a high initial setup cost, whereas Codacy has a lower setup cost, making it more budget-friendly for new users.

PyCharm

4.4 out of 5

PyCharm

4.4 out of 5

OpenText Static Application Security Testing offers strong vulnerability management and CI/CD integration for enterprises needing extensive language support. In comparison, PyCharm appeals to individual developers with its efficient code editing, intuitive environment, and cost-effective options, despite heavier resource requirements.

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs. PyCharm Report

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing has a higher setup cost, whereas PyCharm offers more budget-friendly initial expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing has a higher setup cost, whereas PyCharm offers more budget-friendly initial expenses.

Kiuwan Insights

2.0 out of 5

Kiuwan Insights

2.0 out of 5

OpenText excels with superior customer support and pricing, appealing to those needing quick deployment. In comparison, Kiuwan's comprehensive features attract tech buyers who prioritize detailed analysis and reporting. OpenText suits budget constraints, while Kiuwan appeals to feature-focused investments.

Download Kiuwan Insights vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report

Pricing

OpenText Static Application Security Testing has a straightforward setup cost, while Kiuwan Insights offers a more flexible pricing approach. Comparing these aspects highlights the distinct cost structure differences between the two solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Related categories

Static Code Analysis

Application Security Tools

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)