Invicti vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.5, while OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.3. Invicti holds a 1.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 3.0% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 31 Invicti reviews

3,424 Views
2,260 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 62 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,593 Views
4,945 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Invicti

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and Invicti are key players in the application security category. OpenText stands out with its robust compliance features, while Invicti has an edge with its proof-based scanning and user-friendly interface.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security offers cloud-based on-demand testing, detailed vulnerability analysis, and integration with development platforms for SAST and DAST. Invicti features proof-based scanning, enhanced reporting capabilities, and an intuitive interface, which help in reducing false positives and managing vulnerabilities efficiently.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could improve its incident management integration and reporting capabilities for better visualization. Invicti might benefit from decreasing scan times, improving integration with other tools, and enhancing its API support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText supports on-premises, public, and hybrid cloud deployments but faces customer service challenges with response times. Invicti offers similar deployment options and receives favorable feedback for its responsive support teams, despite some technical issue resolution needs.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText's pricing may be high for smaller organizations, though it is justified for enterprises seeking comprehensive security. Invicti's pricing is competitive for larger enterprises with flexible options, promising significant ROI through enhanced security and risk management.

To learn more, read our detailed Invicti vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OpenText Core Application Security

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,665 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

Invicti

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

11th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.5% 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) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Invicti	1.5%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.0%
Other	95.5%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Valavan Sivgalingam

Senior Manager, Security Engineering at ESS

Dynamic testing regularly identifies web vulnerabilities and has strong false positive confirmations

It has good false positive confirmations, confirmed issues identification, and proof of exploit-related features as part of it. We use Invicti for these things in our portfolios. The solution includes Proof-Based Scanning technology. Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios. For both the API endpoints and web applications, we do regular testing on a monthly basis for all our releases. Invicti does a good job. The only concern is on the performance side, but other than that, we find it really helpful in identifying web vulnerabilities. A full scan takes more time based on your website and other factors, but for us, it takes more than two to three days. The scan performance can be improved upon. When we check with them, they discuss proof-based scanning and related aspects. However, there could be intermittent results that could help us.

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

"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."

"The platform is stable."

"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."

"Invicti has done a commendable job with respect to ROI, and with respect to being a cost-effective solution and one of the market leaders as an effective solution for SAST and DAST, Invicti has performed very well."

"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."

"I am impressed with Invictus’ proof-based scanning. The solution has reduced the incidence of false positive vulnerabilities. It has helped us reduce our time and focus on vulnerabilities."

"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."

"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."

More Invicti pros

"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 licensing was good."

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

"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."

"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."

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

"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"

"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."

"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."

"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."

"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."

"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."

"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."

More Invicti cons

"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."

"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."

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

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

"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."

"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."

"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify."

"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."

"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."

"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."

"The price should be 20% lower"

"Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

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

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

"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."

"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."

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

"The solution is a little expensive."

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

"It is cost-effective."

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

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	44

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?

The setup cost is pretty competitive. For example, if you want to talk about the SAST license, it comes to about $150 or sometimes less than $100, depending on the conversion or the number of licen...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Invicti?

At this time, there is nothing that comes to mind. However, most of the products in the market are pretty much neck-to-neck competitors. Speaking about it, there are a couple of factors which they ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Invicti?

I have worked on a couple of products, specifically in web application security. I have worked on Invicti, and with respect to PAM, I have worked with BeyondTrust. I have not worked specifically fo...

See all answers

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.

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?

See all answers

Comparisons

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 13% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 17% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 11% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

January 2026

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

January 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

Netsparker

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Invicti helps DevSecOps teams automate security tasks and save hundreds of hours each month by identifying web vulnerabilities that matter. Combining dynamic with interactive testing (DAST + IAST) and software composition analysis (SCA), Invicti scans every corner of an app to find what other tools miss with 99.98% accuracy, delivering on the promise of Zero Noise AppSec. Invicti helps discover all web assets — even ones that are lost, forgotten, or created by rogue departments. With an array of out-of-the-box integrations, DevSecOps teams can get ahead of their workloads to hit critical deadlines, improve processes, and communicate more effectively while reducing risk and hitting the ROI goals.

Invicti

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

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank

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

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OpenText Core Application Security

February 2026

Free Report: Invicti vs. OpenText Core Application Security

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Invicti 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.