OpenText Core Application Security vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

OpenText and MathWorks are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. OpenText is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.3, while MathWorks is ranked #26 with an average rating of 6.3. OpenText holds a 3.2% mindshare in AS, compared to MathWorks’s 1.3% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 85% of MathWorks users who would recommend it.

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 62 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,593 Views
4,879 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Polyspace Code Prover

Read 7 Polyspace Code Prover reviews

2,457 Views
1,794 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Polyspace Code Prover

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and Polyspace Code Prover both compete in the application security domain, focusing on different aspects. Based on features, OpenText has an advantage with its comprehensive application security view, while Polyspace shines in specialized safety-critical and runtime issues.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security includes static and dynamic scanning, real-time updates, and central testing management. It aids in rapid compliance, risk reduction, and integration flexibility. Polyspace Code Prover is designed for functional safety, detecting overflow or division errors through code execution and smoothly integrating into automotive and embedded software environments, critical for safety assurance.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security could improve in reporting visuals, reducing false positives, and expanding language support. Challenges also exist in integrating with incident management. Polyspace Code Prover needs enhancements in automation, speed, and scalability, particularly for large systems, and could improve flexibility in runtime analysis and false positive reduction.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security provides flexible deployment options, including both on-premises and cloud solutions. Polyspace mainly focuses on on-premises deployment with limited cloud options, which might restrict flexibility. OpenText's customer service experiences vary, while Polyspace generally offers timely problem resolution.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is priced on the higher end but offers great security returns and flexible pricing to suit diverse setups. Polyspace Code Prover's cost is justified by its specialized safety-critical capabilities, providing significant value in high-assurance-level industries.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,707 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

14th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

26th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.2%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.3%
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

"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."

"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."

"I do not remember any issues with stability."

"Fortify on Demand is a very good service which can be used by any organization when they are building a team because it identifies security vulnerabilities early in the software development life cycle and provides good visibility into issues in cloud-hosted applications."

"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."

"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."

"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."

"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"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."

"The outputs are very reliable."

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

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

"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."

"The product detects memory corruptions."

Cons

"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."

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

"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 biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."

"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."

"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."

"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."

"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

"Automation could be a challenge."

"The tool has some stability issues."

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

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

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product's cost depends on the type of license."

"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."

"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."

"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."

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."

"It is cost-effective."

"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."

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

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Manufacturing Company

38%

Computer Software Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	44

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

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.

See all answers

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?

See all answers

What do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?

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,...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polyspace Code Prover?

We use the paid version.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 17% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 11% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

CAST Application Intelligence Platform vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 23% of the time

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 17% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 12% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 9% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 6% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

January 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

Polyspace Code Prover

January 2026

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 is a sound static analysis tool that proves the absence of overflow, divide-by-zero, out-of-bounds array access, and certain other run-time errors in C and C++ source code. It produces results without requiring program execution, code instrumentation, or test cases. Polyspace Code Prover uses semantic analysis and abstract interpretation based on formal methods to verify software interprocedural, control, and data flow behavior. You can use it on handwritten code, generated code, or a combination of the two. Each operation is color-coded to indicate whether it is free of run-time errors, proven to fail, unreachable, or unproven.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover

February 2026

Free Report: OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Core Application Security vs. Polyspace Code Prover report.

See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.