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

OpenText Core Application Security vs Polyspace Code Prover 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

OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
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
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.3%, down from 4.2% 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
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.3%
Polyspace Code Prover1.2%
Other95.5%
Application Security Tools
 

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.
reviewer2760282 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The best features with Fortify on Demand include having analysis for any product based on analysis points."
"The source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"When choosing a software security product, we expect the product not only has the ability to find exploits, but also has educational and instructional capabilities related to exploits."
"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 most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"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 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."
 

Cons

"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"In terms of what could be improved, we need more strategic analysis reports, not just for one specific application, but for the whole enterprise. In the next release, we need more reports and more analytic views for all the applications. There is no enterprise view in Fortify. I would like enterprise views and reports."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"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."
"Micro Focus support is slow, and they should improve that."
"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is a little expensive."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"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."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
35%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
University
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

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 ...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
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 ...
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...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
No data available
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.