CodeSonar vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

CodeSecure and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Code Analysis category. CodeSecure is ranked #10, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.4. CodeSecure holds a 3.8% mindshare in SCAS, compared to OpenText’s 5.5% 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

3,182 Views
732 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Static Application...

Read 19 OpenText Static Application Security Testing reviews

4,348 Views
1,609 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

OpenText Static Application...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

CodeSonar and OpenText Static Application Security Testing compete in static code analysis. OpenText SAST appears superior due to its robust features.

Features: CodeSonar is recognized for deep code analysis, vulnerability identification, and quick deployment. OpenText SAST has strong integration capabilities, extensive language support, and efficient risk mapping.

Room for Improvement: CodeSonar could enhance its cloud deployment options, integration with more tools, and language support. OpenText SAST may benefit from simplified configuration, reduced initial setup costs, and clearer documentation on feature updates.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText SAST offers flexible cloud and on-premise deployment with proactive customer service, making it adaptable for various infrastructures. CodeSonar primarily focuses on on-premise solutions with satisfactory support but less deployment versatility.

Pricing and ROI: CodeSonar offers a cost-effective setup leading to strong ROI by minimizing long-term vulnerabilities. OpenText SAST's higher initial costs are justified by comprehensive features that provide consistent returns, enhancing application security.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 895,151 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 Static Code Analysis

10th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (30th)

OpenText Static Application...

Ranking in Static Code Analysis

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 3.8%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Static Application Security Testing is 5.5%, down from 12.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing	5.5%
CodeSonar	3.8%
Other	90.7%

Static Code Analysis

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

Dristi Kurre

Lead Information Security Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Focuses on detailed scans to find critical vulnerabilities while ensuring minimal false positives

I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less than the current latest version. It would be really helpful to include trending vulnerabilities and how to manage them. While it includes all the OWASP top factors, AI has come into the picture, so those updates should also be considered. I haven't thought much about additional features for improvement since I am using it daily. Most of our work revolves around scanning and providing the results, which sometimes feels like a crunch. However, I believe rule pack updates should be implemented. It feels easy to upgrade to the latest version as well.

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

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

"CodeSonar has helped our organization because it detects dead and nonusable parts of code to create a more optimized code."

"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."

"I would suggest trying out automated tools along with CodeSonar on your project, and you will find out that CodeSonar reports many more defects compared to other static analysis tools, so this is a very important tool."

"It has helped us a lot with some issues and has helped us avoid bad code."

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code."

"It has been able to scale."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times."

More CodeSonar pros

"It's helped us free up staff time."

"Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines."

"I recommend this product due to its good pricing, extensive language support, valuable features, and additional features like Fortify Academy."

"The Software Security Center, which is often overlooked, stands out as the most effective feature."

"I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found, and Fortify releases updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released."

"We are satisfied with this solution."

"Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code."

"The stability of the solution is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing pros

Cons

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

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

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

"It was difficult for us to apply a rule, especially to a part of the code, and not apply it to the rest of the code."

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

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

"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."

More CodeSonar cons

"The product shows false positives for Python applications."

"The price can be improved."

"The generation of false positives should be reduced."

"False positives need improvement in the future. Fortify's vulnerability remediation guidance helps improve code security, but I think they need to improve the focus of the solution, as it still contains many bugs and needs a thorough review."

"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."

"The generation of false positives should be reduced."

"Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh."

"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

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

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."

"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."

"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."

"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."

"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."

"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."

"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."

"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

895,151 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

24%

Computer Software Company

University

Financial Services Firm

27%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

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	4
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	11

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been good. We have the scan machines, and we are planning to request more from Micro Focus now. We have calls every month or every oth...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?

Our main use cases for Fortify Static Code Analyzer typically involve trying to figure out the critical vulnerabilities. It depends on the type of scans that we are doing, whether it is a release s...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs CodeSonar

Compared 16% of the time

Coverity Static vs CodeSonar

Compared 13% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

Semgrep vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Black Duck SCA vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 9% of the time

Snyk vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Semgrep vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Static Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

May 2026

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Static Application Security Testing

May 2026

OpenText Static Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Static Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST

Overview

CodeSonar offers a potent tool for static code analysis, adept in detecting runtime errors and security vulnerabilities, with a fast deployment process and scalable capabilities. Its quick analysis and efficient web interface provide a strong basis for code quality validation.

CodeSonar specializes in identifying runtime errors, dead code, and security threats while providing features like code surfing and browsing. It offers a highly efficient web interface, though users find initial setup complex and highlight the need for better static analysis, broader language support beyond C and C++, and an improved licensing model. Despite these challenges, its integration with Jenkins and technical guidance support makes it a reliable choice for teams in defense and software quality assessment. Deployment is quick and easy, yet initial costs are a common concern among users.

What are the key features of CodeSonar?

Quick Analysis: Delivers fast runtime error detection and reporting.
GUI Interface: Offers a user-friendly experience for code browsing.
Scalability: Efficiently deploys across various environments.
Security and Code Detection: Identifies vulnerabilities and potential bugs.
Effective Configuration: Simplified log and analysis configuration.

What benefits can be seen in user reviews?

Detection of Code Vulnerabilities: Enhances security with robust threat detection.
Process Integration: Seamlessly integrates with DevOps tools such as Jenkins.
Scalable Deployment: Quickly adaptable in expanding environments.
GUI Usability: Highly efficient for technical teams to navigate.

CodeSonar is primarily implemented in industries like defense and companies prioritizing code quality. Teams utilize its static code analysis and threat detection capabilities, integrating with Jenkins for continuous integration workflows. Security checks post-builds and technical support are common, aiding in effective defect management.

CodeSecure

OpenText Static Application Security Testing empowers teams with efficient vulnerability detection and streamlined secure coding practices, offering comprehensive language support and seamless integration with development tools.

OpenText Static Application Security Testing enhances software security during development by accurately identifying vulnerabilities with minimal false positives. It integrates seamlessly with IDEs and CI/CD pipelines, making it highly efficient for early detection of security issues. Users benefit from its easy setup, clear documentation, and centralized portal for managing security findings. Despite facing challenges like high costs and complex configurations for certain languages, its role in facilitating compliance and streamlining secure coding processes is indispensable. Improvements are needed in areas such as outdated design, language support, and integration capabilities to meet evolving user expectations.

What features does OpenText Static Application Security Testing offer?

Seamless IDE Integration: Integrates effortlessly with development environments for real-time feedback.
Comprehensive Language Support: Covers a wide range of programming languages, enhancing detection accuracy.
Centralized Security Portal: Provides a streamlined interface for managing vulnerabilities.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Enhanced Security: Identifies vulnerabilities early, preventing potential breaches.
Time Efficiency: Automates processes and speeds up remediation efforts.
Compliance Facilitation: Assists in adhering to security standards and regulations.

Organizations across diverse sectors implement OpenText Static Application Security Testing primarily to secure applications during development phases. Its integration with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps ensures a robust security pipeline. By combining with Sonatype Nexus, secure code, and library management is achieved effectively.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

April 2026

Free Report: CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

895,151 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CodeSonar vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best Static Code Analysis vendors.

We monitor all Static Code Analysis 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.