Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Checkmarx and OpenText are both solutions in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2, while OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 17.0% mindshare in DAST, compared to OpenText’s 11.0% 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

18,489 Views
2,034 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,095 Views
1,145 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Checkmarx One and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing are both strong contenders in application security testing. Checkmarx One seems to have the upper hand due to its automation, early detection capabilities, and flexible licensing options that offer greater integration and cost efficiency.

Features: Checkmarx One is known for its comprehensive scanning across multiple languages, seamless integration with SCM tools, and extensive coverage across CI/CD pipelines. Users find its automation and early vulnerability detection crucial for maintaining security. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, is praised for robust session management and API testing capabilities, though it struggles with scanning speed and handling various application types compared to Checkmarx.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One users desire improvements in SAST scan speed, enhanced dashboard customization, and better handling of false positives. Suggestions also include more AI-assisted fixes and transparency in the correlation engine. For OpenText, users highlight the need for better pricing models, ease of installation, expanded application support, and faster scan reporting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One is commended for its ease of deployment across multiple platforms, including public cloud services, with a responsive and effective customer support team. Conversely, OpenText's deployment options are more limited to on-premises setups, and while customer service is rated well, users seek quicker issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: Although Checkmarx One requires a significant investment, users consider its broad feature set and ROI beneficial, noting reduced development times and improved security outcomes. In contrast, OpenText faces criticism for high costs and limited financial flexibility, particularly impacting smaller enterprises, whereas Checkmarx's flexible licensing offers a more integrated approach to security.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,707 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

2nd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (7th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

3rd

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 February 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 17.0%, down from 27.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 11.0%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Checkmarx One	17.0%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.0%
Other	72.0%

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 most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."

"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."

"It has all the features we need."

"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."

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

"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."

"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."

"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."

More Checkmarx One pros

"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."

"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."

"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

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

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"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."

"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."

"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."

"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."

"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."

"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."

"It is an expensive solution."

"Some were valid and some were not applicable for us based on the scenario."

More Checkmarx One cons

"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."

"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."

"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"The scanner could be better."

"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."

"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."

"It's relatively expensive."

"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."

"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)."

"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."

"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."

"It is the right price for quality delivery."

"It is an expensive solution."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"The price is okay."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"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."

"This solution is very expensive."

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

"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

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software 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 do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

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 47% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Checkmarx One

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 22% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

February 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

January 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 is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

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

December 2025

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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,707 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.