FOSSA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

The compared FOSSA and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. FOSSA is ranked #9 in SCA , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 3.2% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #2 in SCAS , with an average rating of 8.2, and holds a 10.9% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of FOSSA users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

FOSSA

Read 15 FOSSA reviews

1,706 Views
1,621 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

OpenText Static Application...

Read 19 OpenText Static Application Security Testing reviews

6,224 Views
1,618 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

FOSSA

OpenText Static Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between FOSSA and OpenText Static Application Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA).

To learn more, read our detailed Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Report (Updated: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 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

FOSSA

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (9th)

OpenText Static Application...

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. FOSSA is designed for Software Composition Analysis (SCA) and holds a mindshare of 3.2%, down 3.9% compared to last year.
OpenText Static Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Static Code Analysis, holds 10.9% mindshare, up 10.5% since last year.

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

Static Code Analysis

Featured Reviews

Hanumanth Ramsetty

Software Engineer at Tech Mahindra Limited

Proactively mitigate deployment vulnerabilities with seamless dependency tracking

Before using FOSSA, we could only identify issues after deployment in the Cloud Run. Now, with FOSSA, we identify dependency issues or vulnerabilities during the CI phase itself. This proactive approach has eliminated the need to search the internet for solutions, as FOSSA provides updated recommendations automatically. This has made the process more efficient and mitigated risks before deployment.

Read full review

Aphiwat Leetavorn.

CTO at Marco Technology

Provides extensive language support and enhances secure coding practices

The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified. It should be easier to install, perhaps through a container-based approach where everything is combined into one image or pack of containers. This change would facilitate easier installations and ensure all necessary components are connected and ready to use.

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

"Their CLI tool is very efficient. It does not send your source code over to their servers. It just does fingerprinting. It is also very easy to integrate into software development practices."

"The support team has just been amazing, and it helps us to have a great support team from FOSSA. They are there to triage and answer all our questions which come up by using their product."

"Being able to know the licenses of the libraries is most valuable because we sell products, and we need to provide to the customers the licenses that we are using."

"I found FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine to be accurate and that it was tuned appropriately to the settings that we were looking for. The policy engine is pretty straightforward... I find it to be very straightforward to make small modifications to, but it's very rare that we have to make modifications to it. It's easy to use. It's a four-category system that handles most cases pretty well."

"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify all of the components in a build, and then surface the licenses that are associated with it, allowing us to make a decision as to whether or not we allow a team to use the components. That eliminates the risk that comes with running consumer software that contains open source components."

"FOSSA is easy to use and set up, provides relatively accurate results, and doesn't require armies of people to get value from its use."

"FOSSA allows us to keep track of all dependencies to ensure they are up to date and not causing any vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable feature is definitely the ease and speed of integrating into build pipelines, like a Jenkins pipeline or something along those lines. The ease of a new development team coming on board and integrating FOSSA with a new project, or even an existing project, can be done so quickly that it's invaluable and it's easy to ask the developers to use a tool like this. Those developers greatly value the very quick feedback they get on any licensing or security vulnerability issues."

More FOSSA pros

"You can really see what's happening after you've developed something."

"Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."

"We've found the documentation to be very good."

"Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code. It effectively identifies security vulnerabilities by analyzing the code and offering insights on improving it."

"We are satisfied with this solution."

"It's helped us free up staff time."

"The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline."

"I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found. Fortify release updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"Security scanning is an area for improvement. At this point, our experience is that we're only scanning for license information in components, and we're not scanning for security vulnerability information. We don't have access to that data. We use other tools for that. It would be an improvement for us to use one tool instead of two, so that we just have to go through one process instead of two."

"While running a FOSSA scan, it takes time for the results to reflect in the FOSSA UI portal."

"If you have thousands of applications, organizing them all into teams or tags is challenging."

"The solution provides contextualized, actionable, intelligence that alerts us to compliance issues, but there is still a little bit of work to be done on it. One of the issues that I have raised with FOSSA is that when it identifies an issue that is an error, why is it in error? What detail can they give to me? They've improved, but that still needs some work. They could provide more information that helps me to identify the dependencies and then figure out where they originated from."

"I would like more customized categories because our company is so big. This is doable for them. They are still in the stages of trying to figure this out since we are one of their biggest companies that they support."

"We have seen some inaccuracies or incompleteness with the distribution acknowledgments for an application, so there's certainly some room for improvement there. Another big feature that's missing that should be introduced is snippet matching, meaning, not just matching an entire component, but matching a snippet of code that had been for another project and put in different files that one of our developers may have created."

"FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually."

"I want the product to include binary scanning which is missing at the moment. Binary scanning includes code and component matching through dependency management. It also includes the actual scanning and reverse engineering of the boundaries and finding out what is inside."

More FOSSA cons

"I'm not sure if Fortify Static Code Analyzer has AI capabilities. Currently, this solution doesn't quite have what we need."

"Their licensing is expensive."

"The generation of false positives should be reduced."

"False positives need improvement in the future. Fortify's vulnerability remediation guidance helps improve code security, but I think they need to improve the focus of the solution, as it still contains many bugs and needs a thorough review."

"Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good."

"I have not seen a return on investment with Fortify Static Code Analyzer."

"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."

"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it."

"Its price is reasonable as compared to the market. It is competitively priced in comparison to other similar solutions on the market. It is also quite affordable in terms of the value that it delivers as compared to its alternative of hiring a team."

"FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch. It is very much a "you get what you pay for" scenario. Regardless of the price, I highly recommend FOSSA."

"The solution's cost is a five out of ten."

"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."

"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."

"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."

"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."

"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."

"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."

"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."

"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."

"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

22%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Educational Organization

Financial Services Firm

29%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FOSSA?

The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free. You have to pay for the features you need, which I think is fair. If you want to get value for free...

See all answers

What needs improvement with FOSSA?

FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually. Some other tools like Check Point or SonarQube provide exact lin...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for FOSSA?

I have worked with FOSSA primarily to manage the dependencies in our projects. For example, if I take a Spring Boot application, FOSSA helps in identifying mismatches or unsupported dependencies th...

See all answers

What do you like most about Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like pa...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been good. We have the scan machines, and we are planning to request more from Micro Focus now. We have calls every month or every oth...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Black Duck vs FOSSA

Compared 38% of the time

Snyk vs FOSSA

Compared 20% of the time

Mend.io vs FOSSA

Compared 14% of the time

JFrog Xray vs FOSSA

Compared 9% of the time

More FOSSA Competitors

Black Duck vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 32% of the time

Snyk vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 17% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 13% of the time

Sonatype Lifecycle vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Kiuwan Insights vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 1% of the time

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

FOSSA

August 2025

Download FOSSA product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Static Application Security Testing

August 2025

OpenText Static Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST

Overview

Up to 90% of any piece of software is from open source, creating countless dependencies and areas of risk to manage. FOSSA is the most reliable automated policy engine for legal teams to maintain license compliance, security to fix vulnerabilities, and engineering to improve code quality across the entire software supply chain. As the only developer-native open source management platform, FOSSA fully integrates with your existing CI/CD pipeline to provide complete visibility and context earlier in the software development lifecycle. For the first time, teams can collaboratively shift left and audit, analyze, control, and remediate license issues and vulnerabilities right in their existing workflows.

FOSSA

OpenText Static Application Security Testing empowers teams with efficient vulnerability detection and streamlined secure coding practices, offering comprehensive language support and seamless integration with development tools.

OpenText Static Application Security Testing enhances software security during development by accurately identifying vulnerabilities with minimal false positives. It integrates seamlessly with IDEs and CI/CD pipelines, making it highly efficient for early detection of security issues. Users benefit from its easy setup, clear documentation, and centralized portal for managing security findings. Despite facing challenges like high costs and complex configurations for certain languages, its role in facilitating compliance and streamlining secure coding processes is indispensable. Improvements are needed in areas such as outdated design, language support, and integration capabilities to meet evolving user expectations.

What features does OpenText Static Application Security Testing offer?

Seamless IDE Integration: Integrates effortlessly with development environments for real-time feedback.
Comprehensive Language Support: Covers a wide range of programming languages, enhancing detection accuracy.
Centralized Security Portal: Provides a streamlined interface for managing vulnerabilities.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Enhanced Security: Identifies vulnerabilities early, preventing potential breaches.
Time Efficiency: Automates processes and speeds up remediation efforts.
Compliance Facilitation: Assists in adhering to security standards and regulations.

Organizations across diverse sectors implement OpenText Static Application Security Testing primarily to secure applications during development phases. Its integration with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps ensures a robust security pipeline. By combining with Sonatype Nexus, secure code, and library management is achieved effectively.

OpenText

Sample Customers

AppDyanmic, Uber, Twitter, Zendesk, Confluent

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

August 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode and others in Software Composition Analysis (SCA). Updated: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.