Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Download the complete report

Helped 900,644 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

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

8th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 2.8%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Coverity Static	2.8%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.2%
Other	94.0%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Benoît Labrique

Software Quality Expert at Endress+Hauser AG

Useful for extra checks but not recommended for C++

We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there. This limitation means it can't detect changes accurately, forcing us to analyze all files instead of just the modified ones. It struggles with repositories organized with different submodules. Although documentation suggests it's possible to configure Coverity to handle this, it requires effort. The solution's analysis tools are high-quality, but the web design could improve. For example, the data is organized into pages when there are many findings, such as ten thousand lines of information. Each page shows about a hundred items, and navigating through these pages (from items 100 to 200, 200 to 300, and so on) can be cumbersome. I've heard from a colleague about another Synopsys tool with a very good GUI. It might be a solution for us to include with Coverity. We invested in Coverity, but compared to SonarQube, it lacks a good interface. SonarQube has a responsive, intuitive GUI, but its analysis quality isn't as good as Coverity's. Coverity's interface isn't great, but its analysis is much better. We hope Synopsys will improve Coverity because it doesn't make a good impression when you first use it. We started with the command line and saw the results were very good. We moved from another tool with a slightly better GUI, but it crashed often, so Coverity was an improvement. When I used the solution earlier, I noticed some issues. It supports C++, which we use, but there's room for improvement. Coverity has two plug-ins. The newer one works well for languages like C# or Java and is very responsive. When we evaluated it with Synopsys, they presented it as easy to configure and install. However, C++ slows down significantly because it's analyzing in the background. It's not very responsive when typing, likely due to the many included files in C++ that need analysis. It's not as quick as with C# or other languages, where you get immediate feedback from Coverity. The classic plug-in is still supported but old-fashioned. It has a manual option, but I haven't checked it. The main problem for C++ users who prefer the old plug-in is responsiveness.

Read full review

Himanshu_Tyagi

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.

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

"Ease of development teams to adopt."

"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."

"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."

"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."

"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."

"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."

"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."

"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."

More Coverity Static pros

"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."

"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."

"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."

"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."

"The source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."

"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."

"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."

"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."

"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."

"There should be additional IDE support."

"Their technical support isn't so good. That needs improvement. They don't address the problems I bring up. It's not a priority for them."

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."

"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."

More Coverity Static cons

"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."

"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."

"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."

"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."

"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."

"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."

"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."

"I would rate the support for OpenText at no more than three out of ten; it is really bad, and we encounter a lot of problems when getting support."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"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."

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

"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 is affordable."

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."

"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."

"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."

"It is cost-effective."

"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."

"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."

"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

"The solution is a little expensive."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

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

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

29%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Government

Construction Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	46

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

What needs improvement with Coverity?

The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but they take a longer time to respond. The core support is not straightforward, an...

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?

Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Comparisons

Compared 15% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 7% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Coverity Static

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Coverity Static

Compared 4% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 22% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

DerScanner vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Coverity Static

Download Coverity Static product report

OpenText Core Application Security

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

OpenText Core Application Security report

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise actionable remediation advice and context-specific eLearning help your developers understand how to fix their prioritized issues quickly, without having to become security experts.

Coverity seamlessly integrates automated security testing into your CI/CD pipelines and supports your existing development tools and workflows. Choose where and how to do your development: on-premises or in the cloud with the Polaris Software Integrity Platform (SaaS), a highly scalable, cloud-based application security platform. Coverity supports more than 20 languages and 200 frameworks and templates.

Black Duck

OpenText Core Application Security offers robust features like static and dynamic scanning, real-time vulnerability tracking, and seamless integration with development platforms, designed to enhance code security and reduce operational costs.

OpenText Core Application Security is a cloud-based, on-demand service providing accurate and deep scanning capabilities with detailed reporting. Its integrations with development platforms ensure an enhanced security layer in the development lifecycle, benefiting users by lowering operational costs and facilitating efficient remediation. The platform addresses needs for intuitive interfaces, API support, and comprehensive vulnerability assessments, helping improve code security and accelerate time-to-market. Despite its strengths, challenges exist around false positives, report clarity, and language support, alongside confusing pricing and package options. Enhancements are sought in areas like CI/CD pipeline configuration, report visualization, scan times, and integration with third-party tools such as GitLab, container scanning, and software composition analysis.

What features define OpenText Core Application Security?

Static and Dynamic Scanning: Offers thorough analysis to identify vulnerabilities during development.
Real-time Vulnerability Tracking: Continuously updates and monitors potential security threats.
Seamless Development Platform Integration: Enhances security processes without disrupting workflows.
Cloud-Based Service: Provides flexible, on-demand security capabilities with accurate results.
API Support: Allows smooth integration and automation within existing systems.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Reduced Operational Costs: Optimizes resources by lowering costs associated with security management.
Efficient Remediation: Speeds up the process of identifying and resolving vulnerabilities.
Enhanced Code Security: Strengthens overall application security during the development lifecycle.
Accelerated Time-to-Market: Streamlines development stages by integrating essential security tools.

Industries like mobile applications, e-commerce, and banking leverage OpenText Core Application Security for its ability to identify vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. Integrating seamlessly with DevSecOps and security auditing processes, this tool supports developers in writing safer code, ensuring secure application deployment and enhancing software assurance.

OpenText

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.

Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security