

OpenText Core Application Security and Sonatype Lifecycle compete in the security software category. Sonatype Lifecycle holds the upper hand due to its proficiency in open-source governance and integration with DevOps tools.
Features: OpenText Core offers HIPAA compliance, tailored static code analysis, and a client portal for real-time insights. This provides on-demand and cloud-based testing with a quick turnaround. Sonatype Lifecycle provides open-source governance with proactive monitoring, integration with DevOps tools, and advanced vulnerability management.
Room for Improvement: OpenText needs improvements in false positive reduction and bug tracker integration. It also faces challenges with reporting clarity and scan times. Sonatype Lifecycle could enhance real-time notifications, server space management, and expand language integration.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both solutions offer on-premises and cloud deployment options. OpenText has reported delays in technical support, particularly after acquisitions, whereas Sonatype is known for its responsive and efficient customer service.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText is often seen as costly, though it offsets costs by reducing security breaches. Sonatype has competitive pricing and clarity in bundled licensing, providing significant value despite not being the cheapest option.
I have seen a return on investment regarding time saved, as we now need a team of fewer than five people to manage operations for legacy systems and multiple websites.
We have seen cost savings and efficiency improvements as we now know what happens in what was previously a black box.
I had direct interaction with them, which facilitated how we onboarded Fortify.
Support tickets often stay open for one month to three months, which leads to customer frustration.
Customer support is responsive, typically replying in under two hours
They are helpful when we raise any tickets.
If a customer wants to know the tools and the technology used for their application to scan their application, they provide less information on that.
It handles high availability at the database level, such as synchronizing JFrog repository servers without complicated configurations.
The scalability of Sonatype Lifecycle is robust, especially with its SaaS offering and ease of resource scaling, whether horizontally or vertically.
Sonatype Lifecycle is very stable, especially in the binary repository management use case for managing binary artifacts.
Sonatype Lifecycle is stable technologically with minimal encountered issues.
It would be beneficial if Fortify could check for CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) in third-party libraries, which I currently use a separate dependency checker tool for.
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.
It would be better for Fortify on Demand if they could analyze not only the security pillar but also maintainability, portability, and reliability, covering all pillars of ISO 25000.
We also noticed a lack of detailed information for configuring Sonatype Lifecycle for high availability and data recovery.
The visibility and clarity instructions are lacking. Users, especially those less experienced, are often baffled by the breadth of Sonatype Lifecycle Nexus IQ server's capabilities and may not know where to start.
For larger numbers like our case with 1,000 user licenses, JFrog becomes much more cost-effective, roughly ten times cheaper than Sonatype.
The price and cost revolve primarily around the deployment aspect.
Fortify helps me find serious issues, such as developers inadvertently leaving access tokens, including API access tokens, in the source code.
Additionally, you can integrate Fortify in CICD pipeline, so you get real-time updates about the security issues in your pipeline.
On demand you have two levels of reports: the first from the tool, which is the same as we can get from Fortify on-premises, and a next level reporting made by experts from OpenText, leading to a more condensed and precise report as level three.
The integration into our CICD pipeline enables us to continuously monitor code changes and identify new vulnerabilities.
We are true and through on compliances, ensuring certain GDPR and IT Goth have their own set of requirements and OWASP scans.
The most valuable feature for us is Sonatype Lifecycle's capability in identifying vulnerabilities.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Sonatype Lifecycle | 2.0% |
| OpenText Core Application Security | 3.2% |
| Other | 94.8% |


| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 17 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 44 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 13 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 29 |
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?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.
Sonatype Lifecycle enhances enterprise security, helping reduce software risk efficiently. It offers automation and high-quality data to manage open source and AI risk across the SDLC, facilitating quicker issue resolution.
Sonatype Lifecycle reduces software vulnerabilities by offering advanced automation capabilities, ensuring reliable management of open source and AI risks. Through Golden Pull Requests, smart recommendations, and zero-effort fixes, it helps maintain software quality without disrupting development. Its adaptable policies enforce security, legal, and quality standards effectively, reducing potential rework and production issues. The platform provides deep insights into vulnerability, license, quality, and architecture, allowing teams to prioritize risks effectively while continuously monitoring changes. Comprehensive enterprise reporting boosts visibility into the effectiveness of security programs.
What features does Sonatype Lifecycle offer?Sonatype Lifecycle is widely used to enhance security across industries by automating DevSecOps and integrating into build pipelines. Companies employ it for proactive monitoring of third-party libraries, ensuring compliance with licensing standards, and managing firewalls to prevent insecure components. It supports organizations in maintaining robust software supply chain security.
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.