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

NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Rapid7 and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Additionally, 100% of Rapid7 users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
OpenText Core Application S...
Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews
  • 8,536 Views
  • 6,231 Comparison Views
90% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] compete in the application security domain. OpenText is preferred for support and pricing, while NTOSpider [EOL] stands out for its comprehensive features.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security offers advanced vulnerability scanning, real-time threat detection, and strong security measures. NTOSpider [EOL] provides automated dynamic testing, broad attack simulation, and extensive testing capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides an intuitive deployment process and proactive support, whereas NTOSpider [EOL] has a complex deployment with premium support packages for enhanced assistance.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core presents competitive initial costs with substantial ROI through effective threat mitigation. NTOSpider [EOL] has higher setup costs but delivers value by potentially lowering long-term vulnerability expenses.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Application Security Tools Report (Updated: May 2026).
Buyer's Guide
Application Security Tools
May 2026
Download the complete report
Helped 893,221 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

NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL]
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user245400 - PeerSpot reviewer
it_user245400
Application Security Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
There were some incompatibility issues, but it's a fairly stable product.
The ability to exploit injection capabilities It has enabled me to develop a more comprehensive SDLC. The vulnerability mapping needs some work. I've been using it for one year alongside Rapid7. There were some incompatibility issues after a Windows update where the NTO consumed all the…
Read full review
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"It has enabled me to develop a more comprehensive SDLC."
"Security defects are captured early in the lifecycle and fixed quicker."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"HP Fortify is perfect for any company that creates their own applications or uses vendor-developed ones; it’s great for QA and development phases."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is a very easy-to-use solution."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"Fortify supports most languages, integrates with lots of tools, and has API support, whereas other tools are limited to typical languages and IBM's solutions are not flexible enough to support any language."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
More OpenText Core Application Security pros
 

Cons

"There were some incompatibility issues after a Windows update where the NTO consumed all the available RAM."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems."
"It would be highly beneficial if Fortify on Demand incorporated runtime analysis, similar to how Contrast Security utilizes agents for proactive application security."
"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 has some problems with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond."
"I find that while it does find a lot of legitimate threats, it tends to have a lot of false positives, and there are more false positives than I would like to see."
"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
More OpenText Core Application Security cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"It is cost-effective."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
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...
See all answers
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...
See all answers
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 ...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

No data available
SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 19% of the time
Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 8% of the time
Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 5% of the time
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 4% of the time
HCL AppScan vs OpenText Core Application Security Logo
HCL AppScan vs OpenText Core Application Security
Compared 4% of the time
More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Application Security Tools
May 2026
NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] reportDownload NT OBJECTives NTOSpider [EOL] product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Core Application Security
April 2026
OpenText Core Application Security reportDownload OpenText Core Application Security product report
 

Also Known As

NTOSpider
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

While today's malicious attackers pursue a variety of goals, they share a preferred channel of attack - the millions of custom web, mobile, and cloud applications companies deploy to serve their customers. NTOSpider dynamically scans these applications for vulnerabilities across all modern technologies, provides tools that speed remediation and monitors applications for changes.
Rapid7

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

University of Salzburg, Chr. Hansen, American Chemical Society, North American Retail Chain, Wiltshire Council, Redner's Markets, Acosta Sales & Marketing
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Buyer's Guide
Application Security Tools
May 2026
Download Free Report
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: May 2026.
DOWNLOAD NOW
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.