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 #5 with an average rating of 7.5. CodeSecure holds a 3.6% mindshare in SCAS, compared to OpenText’s 5.0% 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

3,347 Views
803 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Static Application...

Read 19 OpenText Static Application Security Testing reviews

4,284 Views
1,714 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Static Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

CodeSonar and OpenText Static Application Security Testing compete in static code analysis. OpenText SAST appears superior due to its robust features.

Features: CodeSonar is recognized for deep code analysis, vulnerability identification, and quick deployment. OpenText SAST has strong integration capabilities, extensive language support, and efficient risk mapping.

Room for Improvement: CodeSonar could enhance its cloud deployment options, integration with more tools, and language support. OpenText SAST may benefit from simplified configuration, reduced initial setup costs, and clearer documentation on feature updates.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText SAST offers flexible cloud and on-premise deployment with proactive customer service, making it adaptable for various infrastructures. CodeSonar primarily focuses on on-premise solutions with satisfactory support but less deployment versatility.

Pricing and ROI: CodeSonar offers a cost-effective setup leading to strong ROI by minimizing long-term vulnerabilities. OpenText SAST's higher initial costs are justified by comprehensive features that provide consistent returns, enhancing application security.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,747 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 (30th)

OpenText Static Application...

Ranking in Static Code Analysis

5th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 3.6%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Static Application Security Testing is 5.0%, down from 11.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing	5.0%
CodeSonar	3.6%
Other	91.4%

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

"I would suggest trying out automated tools along with CodeSonar on your project, and you will find out that CodeSonar reports many more defects compared to other static analysis tools, so this is a very important tool."

"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."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times."

"It has helped us a lot with some issues and has helped us avoid bad code."

"It has been able to scale."

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

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

"CodeSonar has helped our organization because it detects dead and nonusable parts of code to create a more optimized code."

More CodeSonar pros

"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."

"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."

"I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found, and Fortify releases updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released."

"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."

"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."

"Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines."

"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."

"The stability of the solution is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"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."

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

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

"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."

"The MISRA guidelines were not appropriately reported and there were some flags or errors."

"It was expensive."

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

"It was difficult for us to apply a rule, especially to a part of the code, and not apply it to the rest of the code."

More CodeSonar cons

"The pricing is a bit high. It would be nice if it was more competitive."

"Streamlining the upgrade process and enhancing compatibility would make it easier for us to keep our security tools up-to-date."

"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."

"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."

"The price can be improved."

"The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified."

"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."

"The generation of false positives should be reduced."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"Pricing is a bit costly."

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

"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."

"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."

"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

24%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

University

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

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 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

What is your primary use case for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

Our main use cases for Fortify Static Code Analyzer typically involve trying to figure out the critical vulnerabilities. It depends on the type of scans that we are doing, whether it is a release s...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs CodeSonar

Compared 15% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 12% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Black Duck SCA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 10% of the time

Semgrep vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

ReShaper vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

June 2026

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Static Application Security Testing

June 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

CodeSonar offers a potent tool for static code analysis, adept in detecting runtime errors and security vulnerabilities, with a fast deployment process and scalable capabilities. Its quick analysis and efficient web interface provide a strong basis for code quality validation.

CodeSonar specializes in identifying runtime errors, dead code, and security threats while providing features like code surfing and browsing. It offers a highly efficient web interface, though users find initial setup complex and highlight the need for better static analysis, broader language support beyond C and C++, and an improved licensing model. Despite these challenges, its integration with Jenkins and technical guidance support makes it a reliable choice for teams in defense and software quality assessment. Deployment is quick and easy, yet initial costs are a common concern among users.

What are the key features of CodeSonar?

Quick Analysis: Delivers fast runtime error detection and reporting.
GUI Interface: Offers a user-friendly experience for code browsing.
Scalability: Efficiently deploys across various environments.
Security and Code Detection: Identifies vulnerabilities and potential bugs.
Effective Configuration: Simplified log and analysis configuration.

What benefits can be seen in user reviews?

Detection of Code Vulnerabilities: Enhances security with robust threat detection.
Process Integration: Seamlessly integrates with DevOps tools such as Jenkins.
Scalable Deployment: Quickly adaptable in expanding environments.
GUI Usability: Highly efficient for technical teams to navigate.

CodeSonar is primarily implemented in industries like defense and companies prioritizing code quality. Teams utilize its static code analysis and threat detection capabilities, integrating with Jenkins for continuous integration workflows. Security checks post-builds and technical support are common, aiding in effective defect management.

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

April 2026

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: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,747 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.