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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Veracode comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
3rd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
DevSecOps (11th)
Veracode
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Container Security (13th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 11.5%, up from 10.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 13.6%, down from 24.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode13.6%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing11.5%
Other74.9%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer2753535 - PeerSpot reviewer
DevSecOps Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Integrates security into the development process and improves team collaboration
Veracode helps organizations develop software by reducing the risk of security vulnerabilities through developer enablement and applications focused on governance. You can utilize different levels of processes to achieve better performance or a more scalable service. Since I started working with it in 2022, I’ve found it to be cost-effective as well. Overall, Veracode is a user-friendly security tool. It includes features such as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA). During the development phase, we can identify vulnerabilities in the application. This process occurs in the staging environment during development. When we're ready to go to production, we conduct a final check. Essentially, this tool helps identify vulnerabilities during the code development stage, including both high-level vulnerabilities and those related to open-source software composition. We utilize specific methodologies for this purpose. Additionally, it offers a feature that allows us to set up policies based on client requirements. This means we can customize the tool to meet the specific needs of our clients, ensuring that they receive the appropriate level of security in their applications. Veracode is user-friendly as well. Compared to other tools, their scans take 15 minutes or under. If you have a large scale of libraries or data, it might take longer, but based on my personal experience, the scan usually runs within fifteen minutes. For my case study using the Veracode tool, I worked on an internal project following industry standards. We used Veracode to improve our security posture and speed up the time to market by streamlining the development process. This enhanced collaboration between developers, operations, and security teams. The automated scanning process helped identify and fix vulnerabilities earlier in the development process. We maintained compliance with regulatory requirements, avoided fines, and built customer trust by integrating security into the development process. When we conduct this scan, we receive data on a list of vulnerabilities. This information improved our communication and increased transparency, which leads to better reports about the efforts being put in. This results in a more effective and efficient collaboration process, making it user-friendly for all involved. When considering costs, if we resort to manual processes, it can be time-consuming. Therefore, we utilize automated scans to identify and fix security issues. This allows us to address vulnerabilities early in the development process, as we discussed previously. This applies both to our in-house code and third-party libraries, using Software Composition Analysis (SCA) agent-based scans. In the future, we will also implement SCA agent-based scans as a separate feature within Veracode, which can help organizations avoid the expensive and time-consuming consequences of security issues. Furthermore, we have seen an increase in compliance, helping to maintain adherence to regulatory requirements and industry standards, thereby avoiding fines and reputational damage associated with noncompliance. Additionally, by integrating security into the development process, we enhance customer trust in our organization and its products.

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 performance."
"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."
"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities and is better at it than other products."
"Easy to scan and then share scan reports, it has definitely streamlined many processes."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"The static scan is the most valuable feature."
"Ad-hoc scanning during the development cycle and reports for audits are valuable features."
"The most important feature is the static scanning analysis, and the reason is that it can tell us vulnerability in that code, right before we go ahead and push something to production or provide something to a client... Dynamic scanning actually hits our Web applications, to try to detect any well known Web application vulnerabilities as well."
"Regarding Software Composition Analysis, an exceptional feature is that during a SAST scan, SCA is seamlessly conducted in the background."
"In terms of application security best practices and guidance to our teams, their engineering staff is really excellent. They provide our developers with suggestions and they take those to heart. They've learned from the recommended remediation strategies provided by the Veracode security engineers. That makes all of their future code better."
"For our customers, they know that we go through another level of application security with our application, one our competitors don't use."
"The CSCA vulnerability scanning is useful."
"The ease of integration with Bitbucket pipelines and Git pipelines is vital for us."
 

Cons

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"The solution is on the expensive side. It's something that clients comment on."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"My advice to others using Fortify WebInspect is not to use it, there are better solutions in the market."
"It's very expensive for a small organization."
"The area with the most room for improvement is the speed and responsiveness of the query, as it is usually very slow."
"It would be nice if Veracode were bundled with some preferred vendors like Salesforce and offered at a discount."
"Maybe the boards could be made easier to understand or easier to customize."
"We tried to create an automatic scanning process for Veracode and integrate it into our billing process, but it was easier to adopt it to repositories based on GIT. Until now, our source control repository was Azure DevOps Server (Microsoft TFS) to managing our resources. This was not something that they supported. It took us some sessions together before we successfully implemented it."
"It would be better if we had a channel for direct communication with the engineering team to speed up the process of providing feedback."
"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."
"But the support is a little bit expensive and it could be a little bit better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"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."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market."
"The cost of scanning code is cheaper. It's typically $0.50 per line of code. However, it's expensive to run a high-level process that would normally require a human security expert. For example, penetration testing costs about $1,000 per application for penetration testing. The cost of these features may be too high for smaller organizations. On the other hand, Veracode's interactive application security testing is fast and cheaper compared to other software."
"Pricing seems fair for what is offered, and licensing has been no problem. All developers are able to get the access they need."
"As compared to others, it is a costly solution. It is overpriced, and many organizations with a limited budget cannot afford it. That is why they are going for other tools, but those tools are not that effective. Veracode is better in terms of quality. If you want good service, you have to pay for it."
"It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it only for 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator."
"The worst part about the product is that it does not scale at all. Also, microservices apps will cost you a fortune."
"To my knowledge, licensing for Veracode Static Analysis is paid yearly by my company."
"Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business70
Midsize Enterprise46
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aaron's
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.