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 February 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 3.0%, 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
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.0%
Ixia BreakingPoint0.7%
Other96.3%
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

"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."
"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."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
 

Cons

"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The price could be better."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"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 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."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"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."
"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is expensive."
"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."
"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"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."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."
"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 pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
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: February 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.