Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cequence Security vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 21, 2025

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

Cequence Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
20th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Bot Management (7th), API Security (4th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Cequence Security is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.9%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.9%
Cequence Security0.3%
Other95.8%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2395431 - PeerSpot reviewer
Detect and mitigate attacks with API protection
Compliance with standards like those in Europe often requires ensuring that APIs adhere to OAuth and other security protocols. Many organizations need to verify that their APIs meet these compliance requirements. We can include information about where an API was first recorded and create a detailed chart. Some competitors already offer this feature. It is simple to integrate. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis
Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It uses machine learning algorithms to detect attacks and manage API inventory."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"It improves future security scans."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"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."
 

Cons

"It is expensive."
"It would be highly beneficial if Fortify on Demand incorporated runtime analysis, similar to how Contrast Security utilizes agents for proactive application security."
"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."
"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"It is cost-effective."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"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."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise43
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Cequence Security?
We use the solution to detect and mitigate attacks. It helps prevent them while also protecting APIs and effectively managing API inventory.
What advice do you have for others considering Cequence Security?
Compliance with standards like those in Europe often requires ensuring that APIs adhere to OAuth and other security protocols. Many organizations need to verify that their APIs meet these complianc...
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.
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?
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 passw...
 

Also Known As

Cequence ASP, Cequence Unified API Protection Platform
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

T-Mobile, Lbrands, Ulta Beauty
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: September 2025.
869,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.