Contrast Security Assess vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

The compared Contrast Security and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. Contrast Security is ranked #28 in SAST , and holds a 0.8% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #3 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 10.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Contrast Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

1,722 Views
895 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

2,921 Views
1,052 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Assess and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: May 2022).

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Download the complete report

Helped 881,114 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

Contrast Security Assess

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (30th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (28th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (8th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. Contrast Security Assess is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 0.8%, up 0.4% compared to last year.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 10.6% mindshare, up 9.2% since last year.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Contrast Security Assess	0.8%
SonarQube	18.8%
Checkmarx One	10.4%
Other	70.0%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	10.6%
Veracode	19.4%
Checkmarx One	17.2%
Other	52.8%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Featured Reviews

reviewer1605099

Director of Threat and Vulnerability Management at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees

We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications

The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of. Assess also provides the option of helping developers incorporate security elements while they're writing code. It depends on whether individual developers decide to utilize the information that's provided to them from the solution, but it definitely gives them visibility into more environments. It gives them an opportunity to remediate vulnerabilities well before production deployments.

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

"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."

"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."

"In our most critical applications, we have a deep dive in the code evaluation, which was something we usually did with periodic vulnerability assessments, code reviews, etc. Now, we have real time access to it. It's something that has greatly enhanced our code's quality. We have actually embedded a KPI in regards to the improvement of our code shell. For example, Contrast provides a baseline where libraries and the usability of the code are evaluated, and they produce a score. We always aim to improve that score. On a quarterly basis, we have added this to our KPIs."

"The most valuable feature is the continuous monitoring aspect: the fact that we don't have to wait for scans to complete for the tool to identify vulnerabilities. They're automatically identified through developers' business-as-usual processes."

"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."

"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."

"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."

"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."

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

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

"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."

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

"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."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"The setup of the solution is different for each application. That's the one thing that has been a challenge for us. The deployment itself is simple, but it's tough to automate because each application is different, so each installation process for Contrast is different."

"The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."

"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."

"Contrast Security Assess covers a wide range of applications like .NET Framework, Java, PSP, Node.js, etc. But there are some like Ubuntu and the .NET Core which are not covered. They have it in their roadmap to have these agents. If they have that, we will have complete coverage."

"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."

"Contrast's ability to support upgrades on the actual agents that get deployed is limited. Our environment is pretty much entirely Java. There are no updates associated with that. You have to actually download a new version of the .jar file and push that out to your servers where your app is hosted. That can be quite cumbersome from a change-management perspective."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

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

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"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."

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

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."

"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."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."

"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."

"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."

"The solution is expensive."

"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."

"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."

"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."

"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."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

23%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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

Seeker Interactive vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

Digital.ai Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 18% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess

January 2026

Download Contrast Security Assess 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

Contrast Assess

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

Contrast Security is the world’s leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.

Contrast Security

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

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Free Report: Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Contrast Security Assess vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.