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

OpenText Core Application Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

OpenText Core Application S...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Core Application Security is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 3.2%, down 4.6% compared to last year.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 11.0% mindshare, up 9.5% since last year.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube16.9%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other70.0%
Application Security Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing11.0%
Veracode18.2%
Checkmarx One17.0%
Other53.8%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
AP
Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."
"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"The solution is user-friendly. One feature I find very effective is the tool's automatic scanning capability. It scans replicas of the code developers write and automatically detects any vulnerabilities. The integration with CI/CD tools is also useful for plugins."
"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"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."
"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"The scanner could be better."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"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."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"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."
"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution is very expensive."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
Government
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?
I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Core Application Security vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.