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

Apiiro vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Apiiro
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
27th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (19th), API Security (16th), Software Supply Chain Security (12th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (21st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (12th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Apiiro is 1.4%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
Apiiro1.4%
Other95.4%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
Capability Center Leader, ETRM Platforms at Shell
Comprehensive risk analysis helps identify key performance trends but report access needs improvement
My first feedback for Apiiro is that it is very slow, extremely slow. The moment I select from the entire list of repositories in my vertical, which is almost more than 400 repositories, it takes a lot of time for me to load the report. Sometimes it fails. I do not have Role-Based Access Control (RBAC). It's only given to the application security team, and Apiiro as a vendor does not have the rollback access control enabled for the clients, so that would have given me access to the reports tab, which would have made my life easier. Currently, I have to go to the risks tab to pull out all this information. I started exploring dashboards with Copilot. I need to reach out to the Apiiro teams to see if I can get an access token so that I can pull out a Power BI dashboard. I think Apiiro definitely has its own capabilities, but if there are access tokens that teams can use to build a custom dashboard, that would be great. This might already exist, but that is something which will ease the vulnerability management day-to-day activities.
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

"The workflow automation is likely the best aspect of the solution."
"Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly."
"The positive impact I have seen from working with Apiiro for my company includes the metrics that we get from Apiiro, which have been extremely helpful."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
"OpenText Core Application Security helps maintain compliance standards with a faster remediation cycle, as we know the vulnerabilities, and everybody knows that the developers can perform fixes more quickly."
"The installation was easy."
"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."
"This solution has helped us to improve our security processes."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"We use Micro Focus Fortify on Demand to access web applications and more."
 

Cons

"I would like support for our self-hosted Git server, other than GitHub, just regular Git."
"User management is a little bit clunky."
"My first feedback for Apiiro is that it is very slow, extremely slow."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"The product has a lot of false positives."
"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."
"It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It is cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Apiiro?
One area Apiiro could improve is reporting customization and dashboard flexibility with more advanced filtering and easier communication.
What is your primary use case for Apiiro?
Apiiro is primarily used for code scanning and integration with source code control. The main use cases include code scanning and code snippet analysis. Apiiro provides security and visibility by h...
What advice do you have for others considering Apiiro?
I would highly recommend Apiiro and a clear understanding of the API landscape and integration requirements before implementing it. Apiiro provides the most value to organizations that have multipl...
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?
Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...
 

Also Known As

Apiiro Control Plane (ASOC), Apiiro API Security (SAST), Apiiro Open Source (SCA)
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Morgan Stanley, Rakuten, Jack Henry, SoFi, Colgate, Navan
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apiiro vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.