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

Ixia BreakingPoint 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

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)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 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 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.1%
Ixia BreakingPoint0.7%
Other96.2%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Prakarn Wungpichayssuk - PeerSpot reviewer
ManBusiness Directorager at CSG SOLUTION
Useful simulated attack database, high availability, but integration could improve
We are using Ixia BreakingPoint for security testing by generating traffic The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks. The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint. The vendor should provide a portal for webinars. I have…
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

"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"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."
"BPS VE evaluation was used for testing LTE Network elements with a focus on user plane testing BPS VE along with its UI and new concepts to reduce the complexity of manual testing to a large extent."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I use the solution in my company for security code scans."
"Fortify on Demand's stability is fantastic - I've never seen slowness, and it performs consistently."
"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."
"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"The solution saves us a lot of money, and we're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"OpenText Core Application Security helps maintain compliance standards with a faster remediation cycle, as we know the vulnerabilities, and everybody knows that the developers can perform fixes more quickly."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"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."
 

Cons

"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"Currently BPS VE's REST API was just developed (some specific functionalities are implemented) and can be improved for better control over the tool using scripts, which help in test automation."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"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 flash GUI has room for improvement."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved, to get closer to being accurate in what a real user would do."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"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."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"It could use better integration with the incident management processor."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"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."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"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 of the solution is expensive."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"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."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise45
 

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

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: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.