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

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

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

Coverity Static
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.2%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.0%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity Static4.2%
OpenText Core Application Security3.0%
Other92.8%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

KT
Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation
Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist
We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"What I find most effective about Coverity is its low rate of false positives. I've seen other platforms with many false positives, but with Coverity, most vulnerabilities it identifies are genuine. This allows me to focus on real issues."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"I use the solution in my company for security code scans."
"The best features with Fortify on Demand include having analysis for any product based on analysis points."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"The solution is user-friendly. One feature I find very effective is the tool's automatic scanning capability. It scans replicas of the code developers write and automatically detects any vulnerabilities. The integration with CI/CD tools is also useful for plugins."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
 

Cons

"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"It is expensive."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"The tool's price is somewhere in the middle. It's neither cheap nor expensive. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
What do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. T...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.