OpenText Core Application Security vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover

Download the complete report

Helped 913,806 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

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Application Security Tools

11th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.3%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.3%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.2%
Other	95.5%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

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

reviewer2760282

General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification

Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

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

"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."

"The process was easy to follow and we were supported 24/7 by TAM personnel to help with any fire drills, which was helpful many times when I needed a quick answer late at night or early in the morning."

"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."

"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."

"Because of the kind of products we deal with, and the kind of customers we have, we have really specific security requirements and practices we need to follow, specifically applying to our SDLC."

"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."

"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."

"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."

"The outputs are very reliable."

"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."

"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."

"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."

"The product detects memory corruptions."

Cons

"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."

"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."

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"When we sent a question about the product to their support team, we had to wait a while but they did send us a response eventually."

"It could use better integration with the incident management processor."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."

"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."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."

"I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation."

"The tool has some stability issues."

"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."

"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."

"Automation could be a challenge."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."

"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."

"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."

"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 price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

"We use the paid version."

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

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Outsourcing Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Construction Company

Manufacturing Company

35%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	46

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

Questions from the Community

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 ...

What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

I use Fortify on Demand for monitoring up to a certain extent; it provides monitoring and helps analyze and identify issues that could propagate in the application. When used in conjunction with Ar...

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?

It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.

What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?

We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Comparisons

Compared 27% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 13% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 10% of the time

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 9% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 3% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

Product Reports

OpenText Core Application Security

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

OpenText Core Application Security report

Polyspace Code Prover

Download Polyspace Code Prover product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

No data available

Overview

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

Polyspace Code Prover boosts code reliability by identifying critical issues like memory corruption and null pointer dereferences, adhering to ISO 26262 standards.

Polyspace Code Prover offers advanced static code analysis tailored to detect complex runtime issues, making it a substantial asset in safety-critical software development. With features that facilitate easy integration with minimal tool switching, it effectively examines code segment runtimes for potential faults such as memory overflows. Polyspace Code Prover stands out by providing mathematical proofs of correctness, differentiating it from other static tools. However, improvements in processing speed and large-scale application handling remain necessary. While integration challenges exist with CI environments like AWS and Azure, the tool's efficiency is valued in automotive applications for unit-level verification and requirement-based component development, despite some scalability limitations.

What are Polyspace Code Prover's key features?

Division by Zero Checks: Ensures code stability and reliability by identifying risky operations.
Memory Corruption Detection: Safeguards against potential memory leaks and access violations.
ISO 26262 Compliance: Aligns with critical automotive industry standards.
Mathematical Correctness Proof: Provides certainty in logic correctness, unique in static analysis tools.
Minimal Tool Switching: Enhances user efficiency with seamless integration into workflows.

What benefits can be gained from Polyspace Code Prover?

Enhanced Code Reliability: Reduces faults and improves the robustness of developed code.
Increased Efficiency: Fast analysis with minimal tool changes streamlines workflow.
Compliance Assurance: Supports meeting stringent industry standards.
Risk Reduction: Identifies critical issues early, minimizing potential downtime or defects.

In industries such as automotive, Polyspace Code Prover is crucial for Functional Safety validation. It is applied in diverse projects like vertical control systems and cluster infotainment, with a focus on requirement-based component development. Despite challenges in larger applications, it remains a vital tool for analyzing Simulink models and small-scale implementations.

MathWorks

Sample Customers

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.

Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center

OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover