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

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

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

"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."

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

"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."

"If they have a cluster structure, then definitely they should use Coverity."

"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."

"Coverity provides developers with a good, best practice, coding advice, and tracks risks of poor coding quality."

More Coverity Static pros

"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."

"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."

"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."

"It is a great solution and it is cost-effective for a secure development process, and if an enterprise wants to adopt the DevOps process, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is a great starting point."

"I use the solution in my company for security code scans."

"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."

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

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."

"Coverity is not stable but it is sufficient for our organization's requirements."

"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."

"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."

"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."

"I am not a fan of using both SOAP and REST APIs and Coverity offers a mix of functionality depending on the interface used."

"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."

More Coverity Static cons

"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."

"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."

"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there, but these were the factors because of which we had to use some instances of other tools as well."

"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."

"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."

"I would like the solution to add AI support."

"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."

"It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"Coverity is quite expensive."

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."

"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."

"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."

"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."

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."

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."

"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."

"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."

"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."

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

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

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