CodeSonar vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

CodeSecure and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Code Analysis category. CodeSecure is ranked #10, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.5. CodeSecure holds a 3.5% mindshare in SCAS, compared to OpenText’s 6.4% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of CodeSecure users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

2,674 Views
508 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Static Application...

Read 19 OpenText Static Application Security Testing reviews

4,557 Views
1,367 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Static Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

CodeSonar and OpenText Static Application Security Testing compete in static analysis and security testing. OpenText has the upper hand with its advanced feature set.

Features: CodeSonar delivers precise code analysis, extensive vulnerability detection, and seamless development workflow integration. OpenText provides robust automated security checks, a comprehensive reporting system, and in-depth security coverage.

Room for Improvement: CodeSonar could enhance its GUI to be more modern and intuitive, improve scalability issues, and expand its language support. OpenText might focus on streamlining its initial setup process, reducing the complexity of its configuration, and offering better integration capabilities with other tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CodeSonar offers straightforward deployment and seamless integration with existing systems, supplemented by responsive support. OpenText provides comprehensive setup assistance and extensive documentation but may involve more complex initial configuration.

Pricing and ROI: CodeSonar offers competitive pricing and delivers ROI through improved software reliability and reduced vulnerabilities. OpenText, while requiring higher investment, provides significant ROI by mitigating potential security risks with its extensive feature set.

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

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static 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

CodeSonar

Ranking in Static Code Analysis

10th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (28th)

OpenText Static Application...

Ranking in Static Code Analysis

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 3.5%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Static Application Security Testing is 6.4%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Code Analysis Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing	6.4%
CodeSonar	3.5%
Other	90.1%

Static Code Analysis

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY

Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel

Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand

This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.

Read full review

Dristi Kurre

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.

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

"It has been able to scale."

"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."

"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."

"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."

"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."

"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."

"My initial setup of Fortify Static Code Analyzer was good."

"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."

"Its flexibility is most valuable. It is such a flexible tool. It can be implemented in a number of ways. It can do anything you want it to do. It can be fully automated within a DevOps pipeline. It can also be used in an ad hoc, special test case scenario and anywhere in between."

"We are satisfied with this solution."

"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 password credentials and access keys embedded in the code."

"Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code. It effectively identifies security vulnerabilities by analyzing the code and offering insights on improving it."

"I like Fortify Software Security Center or Fortify SSC. This tool is installed on each developer's machine, but Fortify Software Security Center combines everything. We can meet there as security professionals and developers. The developers scan their code and publish the results there. We can then look at them from a security perspective and see whether they fixed the issues. We can agree on whether something is a false positive and make decisions."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."

"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."

"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."

"It was expensive."

"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."

"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."

"I'm not sure if Fortify Static Code Analyzer has AI capabilities. Currently, this solution doesn't quite have what we need."

"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."

"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 price can be improved."

"The pricing is a bit high."

"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 have not seen a return on investment with Fortify Static Code Analyzer."

"The product shows false positives for Python applications."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."

"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."

"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit 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."

"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."

"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."

"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

25%

University

11%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

28%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	11

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs CodeSonar

Compared 30% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 20% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

Helix QAC vs CodeSonar

Compared 5% of the time

Understand vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Black Duck SCA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 23% of the time

Snyk vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 13% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 11% of the time

Sonatype Lifecycle vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Klocwork vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

February 2026

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Static Application Security Testing

January 2026

OpenText Static Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST

Overview

GrammaTech enables organizations to develop software applications more efficiently, on-budget, and on-schedule by helping to eliminate harmful defects that can cause system failures, enable data breaches, and ultimately increase corporate liabilities in today’s connected world. GrammaTech is the developer of CodeSonar, the most powerful source and binary code analysis solution available today. Extraordinarily precise, CodeSonar finds, on average, 2 times more serious defects in software than other static analysis solutions. Designed for organizations with zero tolerance for defects and vulnerabilities in their applications, CodeSonar provides static analysis for applications where reliability and security are paramount - widely used by software developers in avionics, medical, automotive, industrial control, and other mission-critical applications. Some of GrammaTech's customers include Toyota, GE, Hyundai, Kawasaki, LG, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic, and Samsung.

CodeSecure

OpenText Static Application Security Testing empowers teams with efficient vulnerability detection and streamlined secure coding practices, offering comprehensive language support and seamless integration with development tools.

OpenText Static Application Security Testing enhances software security during development by accurately identifying vulnerabilities with minimal false positives. It integrates seamlessly with IDEs and CI/CD pipelines, making it highly efficient for early detection of security issues. Users benefit from its easy setup, clear documentation, and centralized portal for managing security findings. Despite facing challenges like high costs and complex configurations for certain languages, its role in facilitating compliance and streamlining secure coding processes is indispensable. Improvements are needed in areas such as outdated design, language support, and integration capabilities to meet evolving user expectations.

What features does OpenText Static Application Security Testing offer?

Seamless IDE Integration: Integrates effortlessly with development environments for real-time feedback.
Comprehensive Language Support: Covers a wide range of programming languages, enhancing detection accuracy.
Centralized Security Portal: Provides a streamlined interface for managing vulnerabilities.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Enhanced Security: Identifies vulnerabilities early, preventing potential breaches.
Time Efficiency: Automates processes and speeds up remediation efforts.
Compliance Facilitation: Assists in adhering to security standards and regulations.

Organizations across diverse sectors implement OpenText Static Application Security Testing primarily to secure applications during development phases. Its integration with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps ensures a robust security pipeline. By combining with Sonatype Nexus, secure code, and library management is achieved effectively.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

December 2025

Free Report: CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best Static Code Analysis vendors.

We monitor all Static Code Analysis 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.