Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Black Duck and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Black Duck is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText is ranked #9 with an average rating of 7.7. Black Duck holds a 3.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 3.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,253 Views
8,305 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

8,536 Views
6,146 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

OpenText Core Application Security and Coverity Static compete in the application security category. OpenText appears to have the upper hand with its dynamic testing capabilities, which are crucial for real-time security assurance.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security enables dynamic application security testing for simulating real-world attacks, manages vulnerabilities in open-source components, and integrates seamlessly with existing security systems for a streamlined DevOps pipeline. Coverity Static provides detailed static code analysis, offers comprehensive vulnerability reports, and supports integration with development environments, although it lacks dynamic testing capabilities.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security could enhance language support, improve incident management integration, and reduce false positives. Coverity Static can benefit from improved UI, broader language support, and better integration with development environments to minimize false positives.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security is praised for its cloud deployment efficiency, though customer support is noted to be slow. Coverity Static offers strong on-premises solutions but faces integration challenges, with mixed experiences in customer support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is initially costly but offers features that justify the expense by enhancing security posture and reducing vulnerabilities. It may appeal more to organizations seeking comprehensive solutions. Coverity Static also comes with a high per-user cost, requiring careful consideration of its cost versus functionality benefits.

To learn more, read our detailed Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 896,387 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)

5th

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 May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 3.0%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, 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	3.0%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.1%
Other	93.9%

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

"The solution was very simple to set up."

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."

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

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

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."

"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."

"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."

"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."

More Coverity Static pros

"Excellent – from the PoC through setup and implementation; we received timely and knowledgeable support whenever we need it."

"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."

"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."

"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."

"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 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."

"If you are looking for commercial tools, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is one of the best tools."

"The user interface is good."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"The tool needs to improve its reporting."

"The product lacks sufficient customization options."

"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 is not stable."

"We'd like it to be faster."

"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced."

"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."

"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."

More Coverity Static cons

".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."

"When we sent a question about the product to their support team, we had to wait a while but they did send us a response eventually."

"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."

"There is room for improvement in the integration process."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent."

"I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."

"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."

"The solution has some problems with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

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

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."

"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 tool was fairly priced."

"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."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

"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

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

"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"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."

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

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

"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."

"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."

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

896,387 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Government

Computer Software 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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 17% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 7% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Coverity Static

Compared 4% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 21% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

May 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

May 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product 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.

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security

April 2026

Free Report: Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

896,387 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

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.