CodeSonar vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

CodeSecure and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. CodeSecure is ranked #31, while OpenText is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.0. CodeSecure holds a 1.5% mindshare in AS, compared to OpenText’s 4.0% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of CodeSecure users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

2,643 Views
1,824 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 60 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

7,407 Views
5,481 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and CodeSonar compete in the realm of application security tools. OpenText appears to have the upper hand due to its extensive feature set, language support, and integration capabilities, providing a robust choice for comprehensive security management.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security offers comprehensive scanning capabilities, strong API support for integration, and real-time remediation guidance, making it a powerful tool for developers in DevOps environments. CodeSonar specializes in rapid detection and analysis of runtime errors, strong dead code detection, and provides deep security insights, emphasizing quality defects and reliability.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security could improve its reporting capabilities, mitigate false positives, and enhance integration with incident management solutions. CodeSonar could benefit from improved coding rules, broader programming language support, and stronger alignment with modern development trends and tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides flexible deployment options, from on-premises to public and hybrid cloud environments, catering to diverse organizational needs with well-regarded customer service. CodeSonar, predominantly deployed on-premises, receives positive feedback for support but needs improved responsiveness and integration with advanced development tools.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is generally more cost-effective with scalable pricing options for both cloud and on-premise setups. Despite its perceived high cost, its comprehensive security features justify its pricing, offering value in preventing breaches. CodeSonar's pricing is relatively expensive, particularly for projects needing multiple licenses, admired for its reliability and effectiveness but potentially restricting broader adoption beyond large projects.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,676 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

CodeSonar

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (10th)

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Application Security Tools

14th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 4.0%, down from 5.2% 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	4.0%
CodeSonar	1.5%
Other	94.5%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY

Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel

Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand

This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.

Read full review

Jonathan Steyn

Principal Technical Consultant at EOH

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.

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

"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."

"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."

"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."

"It has been able to scale."

"It improves future security scans."

"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 installation was easy."

"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."

"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."

"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."

"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."

"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."

"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."

"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."

"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."

"It was expensive."

"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."

"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."

"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."

"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."

"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."

"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."

"There is room for improvement in the integration process."

"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."

"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."

"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."

"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."

"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."

"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."

"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."

"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."

"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."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

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

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

24%

University

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	43

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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?

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs CodeSonar

Compared 47% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 25% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 8% of the time

Axivion Static Code Analysis vs CodeSonar

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 13% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 9% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

August 2025

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

August 2025

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

GrammaTech enables organizations to develop software applications more efficiently, on-budget, and on-schedule by helping to eliminate harmful defects that can cause system failures, enable data breaches, and ultimately increase corporate liabilities in today’s connected world. GrammaTech is the developer of CodeSonar, the most powerful source and binary code analysis solution available today. Extraordinarily precise, CodeSonar finds, on average, 2 times more serious defects in software than other static analysis solutions. Designed for organizations with zero tolerance for defects and vulnerabilities in their applications, CodeSonar provides static analysis for applications where reliability and security are paramount - widely used by software developers in avionics, medical, automotive, industrial control, and other mission-critical applications. Some of GrammaTech's customers include Toyota, GE, Hyundai, Kawasaki, LG, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic, and Samsung.

CodeSecure

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

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

September 2025

Free Report: CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Find out what your peers are saying about CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CodeSonar vs. OpenText Core Application Security 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.