Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Ixia BreakingPoint vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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

Ixia BreakingPoint
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
31st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
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
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Ixia BreakingPoint is 0.7%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.1%
Ixia BreakingPoint0.7%
Other96.2%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Sai Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Staff QA Engineer at Virsec
Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions
Once, when I raised a ticket regarding a hardware or software issue, the solution's support team visited our company to discuss and find out ways to solve the problem. Sometimes, they asked us to send several photos from the back and front end to identify the issue. It was time-consuming as we were occupied with some other testing simultaneously. Instead, it would have been great if they could have visited our company and rectified the problem.
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

"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"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."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"The best features with Fortify on Demand include having analysis for any product based on analysis points."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
 

Cons

"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"The price could be better."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as password exposure."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of the solution is expensive."
"There is no differentiation in licenses for Breaking Point. For one license, you will get all the features. There is no complexity in that."
"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"It is cost-effective."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Corsa Technology
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Ixia BreakingPoint vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.