Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Checkmarx and OpenText are both solutions in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 13.7% mindshare in DAST, compared to OpenText’s 11.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

31,996 Views
3,520 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

8,324 Views
3,246 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Checkmarx One and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing compete in the application security domain. Checkmarx One appears to have the upper hand due to its superior integration capabilities, ease of use, and developer-friendly features, which enhance secure coding practices more effectively.

Features: Checkmarx One excels in integration with development tools, offers fast scanning processes, and supports a wide range of programming languages, making it developer-friendly. It integrates security seamlessly into the developer workflow, with features like CI/CD pipeline integration, supply chain security, and codebashing for improved developer learning. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing shines with its robust web application scanning capabilities, user authentication features, and comprehensive vulnerability reporting, providing detailed insights into security issues.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One could improve by minimizing false positives, enhancing CI/CD pipeline integration and offering better API security solutions. It also requires improvements in user-friendly reporting and role management. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing could benefit from reducing licensing costs, increasing scanning speed, and improving user experience with more intuitive interfaces and better integration with development tools. Additionally, it needs to enhance scan speeds and adjust pricing to be more competitive.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One provides versatile deployment options, including on-premises, private cloud, and hybrid cloud, generally being well-received, though response times for support tickets can be lengthy. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing's deployment options cover on-premises and public cloud, and while customer service is rated positively, its high pricing might deter smaller clients.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One is known for its high cost but justifies the price with strong integration and security features, offering a significant return on investment by reducing manual coding efforts and enhancing security posture. Its licensing system allows scaling according to organizational needs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, despite meeting security standards, is perceived as costly compared to similar tools, especially for smaller enterprises, making some users deem it less affordable.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 920,769 peers since 2012

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

Checkmarx One

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

2nd

Ranking in DevSecOps

3rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Vulnerability Management (13th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (6th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (4th), AI Security (4th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

4th

Ranking in DevSecOps

9th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 13.7%, down from 19.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 11.2%, up from 11.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	13.7%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.2%
Other	75.1%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution

Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance

Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.

Read full review

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."

"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."

"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."

"One of the most important tools in our building process."

"We are using Checkmarx for analyzing threats."

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."

"Overall, we are very satisfied with Checkmarx and it is a product that I recommend."

"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."

More Checkmarx One pros

"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."

"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."

"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."

"My experience with technical support has been good."

"The product is a good option for enterprise-level organizations."

"The most valuable feature is the performance."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"Dynamic testing. If it had that feature I would have liked to see more consideration of framework validations that we don't have to duplicate. These flags are false positives."

"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."

"It needs better role management."

"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."

"It could be improved with more reporting of false positives and the understanding of file references."

"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."

"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."

"This solution is not very easily scalable, and seems to lack the capability to manage a high volume of applications."

More Checkmarx One cons

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"This solution is very expensive."

"The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."

"We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year. I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year)."

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."

"It is a good product but a little overpriced."

"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."

"It is an expensive solution."

"The solution is costly."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"This solution is very expensive."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"The price is okay."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Outsourcing Company

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

11%

Government

10%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?

I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.

See all answers

What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?

According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 20% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Application Defender vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 36% of the time

Invicti Web + API vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

October 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

October 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

Checkmarx One delivers robust security through seamless integration with SCM and CI/CD tools, ensuring reliable SAST and SCA. Primarily used by organizations for vulnerability detection, it supports cloud and on-premises deployment to enhance secure coding practices.

Checkmarx One provides organizations with comprehensive tools for secure software development, integrating effectively with CI/CD pipelines to scan thousands of applications. Its capabilities extend to identifying vulnerabilities in both code bases and third-party software. Enhancing workflow by supporting SCM solutions, it assists in maintaining secure coding standards and compliance. While excelling in various areas, it requires improvements in scan speed, reduction of false positives, and broader platform integration, particularly for COBOL and Swift. Its pricing model is noted as high, and demand exists for better tutorials and documentation.

What are the key features of Checkmarx One?

Comprehensive Integration: Seamlessly connects with SCM, CI/CD tools to streamline security workflows.
Accurate SAST and SCA: Precisely identifies vulnerabilities down to the exact line of code.
Custom Rules Configuration: Allows tailored security measures to match specific needs.
Quick Scanning: Provides fast analysis to speed up the development process.
Automated Code Remediation: Helps in efficiently fixing code vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect in reviews?

Improved Security: Enhances code safety, reducing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Effective False Positivity Management: Optimizes time spent on genuine issues.
Enhanced Development Processes: Integrates smoothly to boost secure coding initiatives.
Comprehensive Language Support: Facilitates scanning in multiple programming languages, accommodating diverse needs.

Industries implement Checkmarx One for secure coding compliance and vulnerability management across varying environments, choosing between cloud and on-premises deployment based on requirements. Its extensive language support and integration with DevSecOps practices make it a popular choice for organizations aiming to enhance software security.

Checkmarx

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

September 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) vendors and best DevSecOps vendors.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.