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

ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity Platform vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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

ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
37th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity Platform is 0.8%, up from 0.1% 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.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity Platform0.8%
Other96.0%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

TO
Consulting Partner, Cyber Security Delivery - Africa at DeltaGRiC Consulting
Good core scanning, a helpful GDPR assessment template and very good technical support
The core scanning, the scanning process, has got a very nice pass management module. It's fantastic. The last time we did it, the customer was trying to make the SAP system match the GDPR process. We were able to use it for that benchmark. It was very important. The GDPR assessment template that is being used in the process application benchmark and analyzing landscape came in very handy. It was very useful because it also gave notifications.
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

"The core scanning, the scanning process, has got a very nice pass management module, and the GDPR assessment template that is being used in the process application benchmark and analyzing landscape came in very handy and was very useful because it also gave notifications."
"The core scanning, the scanning process, has got a very nice pass management module. It's fantastic."
"The licensing was good."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"Because of the kind of products we deal with, and the kind of customers we have, we have really specific security requirements and practices we need to follow, specifically applying to our SDLC."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand has saved our company money from the use of automation features."
"The installation was easy."
"I think the most valuable feature is its ability to address the source code scanning and dynamic scanning in a known, correlated way."
 

Cons

"The anomaly detection could be improved."
"The solution is generally good, but it's not seamless."
"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."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"Stability could use a little improvement as we've had some issues. It runs out of memory sometimes and uses a lot of resources."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"I know OpenText is developing Aviator, similar to ChatGPT, with LLM inside the OpenText Core Application Security environment. However, I understand they do not have it for the on-premises environment."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"It could use better integration with the incident management processor."
".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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
7%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Wired
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.