No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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
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
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 3.8%, down from 8.0% 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) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Coverity Static3.8%
OpenText Core Application Security3.0%
Other93.2%
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

"Ease of development teams to adopt."
"The tool as it is can be used for code quality improvement."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand has saved our company money from the use of automation features."
"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"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."
"Security defects are captured early in the lifecycle and fixed quicker."
"It improves future security scans."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"I think the most valuable feature is its ability to address the source code scanning and dynamic scanning in a known, correlated way."
 

Cons

"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise. In the next release, we need more reports and more analytic views for all the applications. There is no enterprise view in Fortify. I would like enterprise views and reports."
"It would be useful if they could integrate secure design reviews, security user stories in Fortify on Demand Portal, and also look for possible options to get just one view of risks for given services (Covering Application, Infrastructure, Pen. Test, etc.)."
"It natively supports only a few languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"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."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"The solution is affordable."
"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 pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"It is expensive."
"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."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
4%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

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 Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise45
 

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 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 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: March 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.