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

Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Software Composit...
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (10th)
OpenText Static Application...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Static Code Analysis (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is designed for Software Composition Analysis (SCA) and holds a mindshare of 2.9%, up 2.5% compared to last year.
OpenText Static Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Static Code Analysis, holds 7.4% mindshare, down 10.9% since last year.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis2.9%
Black Duck SCA12.5%
Snyk10.8%
Other73.8%
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
Static Code Analysis Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing7.4%
Veracode14.5%
Checkmarx One10.8%
Other67.3%
Static Code Analysis
 

Featured Reviews

Tharindu Malwenna - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Application Security Engineer at a newspaper with 5,001-10,000 employees
Efficient library identification and upgrade suggestions improve application security
We have many third-party libraries in our organization. I used Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis to identify all the libraries we use and determine whether they are used or unused within the application Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis provides identification of libraries and…
DK
Lead Information Security Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Focuses on detailed scans to find critical vulnerabilities while ensuring minimal false positives
I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less than the current latest version. It would be really helpful to include trending vulnerabilities and how to manage them. While it includes all the OWASP top factors, AI has come into the picture, so those updates should also be considered. I haven't thought much about additional features for improvement since I am using it daily. Most of our work revolves around scanning and providing the results, which sometimes feels like a crunch. However, I believe rule pack updates should be implemented. It feels easy to upgrade to the latest version as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Checkmarx unifies all the features in its service."
"The integration part is easy...It's a stable solution right now."
"One of the strong points of this solution is that it allows you to incorporate it into a CICB pipeline. It has the ability to do incremental scans. If you scan a very large application, it might take two hours to do the initial scan. The subsequent scans, as people are making changes to the app, scan the Delta and are very fast. That's a really nice implementation. The way they have incorporated the functionality of the incremental scans is something to be aware of. It is quite good. It has been very solid. We haven't really had any issues, and it does what it advertises to do very nicely."
"It is very easy and user friendly. It never requires any kind of technical support. You can do everything on your own."
"The tool's visual scan analysis shows me all the libraries' vulnerabilities and license types. It helps identify the most complex issues with licenses. It provides good visibility. SCA shows me all libraries that are vulnerable and the extent of their vulnerability."
"The customer service and support were good."
"What's most valuable in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is that it provides security from the start. In the traditional approach, an enterprise or company validates the solution before launching to a production environment, but in the modern approach, security must be checked and provided from the beginning and from the design, and this is where Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis comes in. The solution helps you make sure that every open-source application that you use is secure, and that there's no vulnerability inside that open-source application."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."
"The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer tells us if there are any security leaks or not. If there are, then it's notifying us and does not allow us to pass the DevOps pipeline. If it is finds everything's perfect, as per our given guidelines, then it is allowing us to go ahead and start it, and we are able to deploy it."
"The Software Security Center, which is often overlooked, stands out as the most effective feature."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"It's helped us free up staff time."
"My initial setup of Fortify Static Code Analyzer was good."
 

Cons

"API security is an area with shortcomings that needs improvement."
"Personally, I currently use it as a standalone tool without integrating it with other systems, and it meets my needs adequately. As a suggestion, I request on considering to add a "what if" feature to the application. Currently, when the tool identifies issues and suggests updates, if I want to explore different scenarios, I need to prepare another file, turn it into a ZIP, and run the analysis again. It would be more convenient if there was a "what if" option in the GUI. This feature could simulate a run, allowing me to quickly check the impact of changing one or more files or versions without the need for a full rerun."
"Its pricing can be improved. It is a little bit high priced. It would be better if it was a little less expensive. It is a good tool, and we're still figuring out how to fully leverage it. There are some questions regarding whether it can scan the MuleSoft code. We don't know if this is a gap in the tool or something else. This is one thing that we're just working through right now, and I am not ready to conclude that there is a weakness there. MuleSoft is kind of its own beast, and we're trying to see how we get it to work with Checkmarx."
"In terms of areas for improvement, what could be improved in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is pricing because customers always compare the pricing among secure DevOps solutions in the market. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis has a lot of competitors yet its features aren't much different. Pricing is the first thing customers consider, and from a partner perspective, if you can offer affordable pricing to your customers, it's more likely you'll have a winning deal. The performance of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis also needs improvement because sometimes, it's slow, and in particular, scanning could take several hours."
"It can have better licensing models."
"The solution could improve by determining the success factor of an upgrade, which is currently lacking."
"Some of the recommendations provided by the product are generic. Even if the recommendations provided by the product are of low level, the appropriate ones can help users deal with vulnerabilities."
"Instant updates for end users to identify vulnerabilities as soon as possible will make Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis better. The UI of the solution could also be improved."
"It can be tricky if you want to exclude some files from scanning. For instance, if you do not want to scan and push testing files to Fortify Software Security Center, that is tricky with some IDEs, such as IntelliJ. We found that there is an Exclude feature that is not working. We reported that to them for future fixing. It needs some work on the plugins to make them consistent across IDEs and make them easier."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer has a bit of a learning curve, and I don't find it particularly helpful in narrowing down the vulnerabilities we should prioritize."
"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"The product shows false positives for Python applications."
"Streamlining the upgrade process and enhancing compatibility would make it easier for us to keep our security tools up-to-date."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"My customers need to pay for the licensing part, and they need to opt for an annual subscription."
"Pricing for Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis needs to be competitive."
"The license model is somewhat perplexing as it comprises multiple aspects that can be confusing for customers. The model is determined by the number of registered users and the number of projects being scanned, along with a third component that adds to the complexity."
"We don't have a license. The usage is limited to one, two, three, five, or ten people. It is currently used for all projects, and there are plans to increase its usage."
"It is a little bit high priced. It would be better if it was a little less expensive."
"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."
"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."
"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."
"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."
"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."
"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."
"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."
"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
29%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis?
The tool's visual scan analysis shows me all the libraries' vulnerabilities and license types. It helps identify the most complex issues with licenses. It provides good visibility. SCA shows me all...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis?
Pricing is complex and high for small organizations but offers great benefits for larger organizations. It is notably different compared to competitors like GitHub Advanced Security.
What needs improvement with Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis?
The solution could improve by determining the success factor of an upgrade, which is currently lacking.
What do you like most about Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like pa...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been good. We have the scan machines, and we are planning to request more from Micro Focus now. We have calls every month or every oth...
What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less ...
 

Also Known As

CxSCA
Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AXA, Liveperson, Aaron's, Playtech, Morningstar
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Snyk, Black Duck, Veracode and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA). Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.