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

Aikido Security vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 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

Aikido Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
31st
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
25th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (79th), Container Security (51st), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (27th), Static Code Analysis (22nd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (35th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (13th), DevSecOps (19th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (15th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
13th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Aikido Security is 1.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
Aikido Security1.1%
Other95.7%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Francisco Javier Vergara - PeerSpot reviewer
SecOps Engineer at Iriusrisk
Automated scans have streamlined vulnerability workflows and now provide clear daily risk reports
In my experience, the best feature Aikido Security offers is its ease of use, as it was really easy to onboard our engineers into adopting Aikido Security in their day-to-day lives. The reason onboarding my engineers with Aikido Security was so easy is the user interface. The first thing our engineers see when they log in is a feed of vulnerabilities that their own repositories are affected by, which helps them focus only on their work at hand. I would also like to add that the integrations part is really useful, as all of the integrations we have added so far, mainly Jira, IDE, and API integrations, are really easy to use because they are backed by strong documentation that they maintain daily. This is a commendation to them. Aikido Security has positively impacted our organization by helping us reduce the complexity in managing our vulnerabilities. We now have a single source of truth with Aikido Security, allowing us to get rid of manually maintained automations that we previously had.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Since switching to Aikido Security, I have noticed a positive impact on my team's productivity with measurable results, as we now have measurements."
"Fortify on Demand is a very good service which can be used by any organization when they are building a team because it identifies security vulnerabilities early in the software development life cycle and provides good visibility into issues in cloud-hosted applications."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"I think the most valuable feature is its ability to address the source code scanning and dynamic scanning in a known, correlated way."
"HP Fortify on Demand provides an independent review of third-party applications, allowing organizations to test software before purchasing, and also allowing software vendors to demonstrate the security of their software."
"It's saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on security consultancy work rather than tool operational work."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
 

Cons

"I think Aikido Security could be improved by addressing its Jira integration, which I feel needs a bit of work."
"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise. In the next release, we need more reports and more analytic views for all the applications. There is no enterprise view in Fortify. I would like enterprise views and reports."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"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."
".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."
"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."
"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
8%
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.
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?
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

FinTech GoCardless ZIP CertifID HealthTech Dental Intelligence PE & Group Techstars Cronos Group Security Tech Human Security Tines HR Tech Simployer Recruitee Agency November Five Other Lighthouse (Hospitality Tech) Smokeball (LegalTech) Runna (B2C Tech) GEA Group (Manufacturing) Community fibre (Telecom) n8n (Software Development)
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: February 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.