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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 15.2%, down 23.1% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.2% mindshare, down 4.3% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing15.2%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional33.6%
GitLab30.1%
Other21.099999999999994%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube12.7%
Checkmarx One8.3%
Other75.8%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. 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. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Simple and straightforward GUI."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent; it will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure, and because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"ROI was 100%. Since there are no product suites available that provide the level of testing available with Codenomicon, the development, quality and security assurance departments know that the investment was correct."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"The stability of this product is great; we tested it under multiple constraints and even on cloud services it is absolutely stable."
"HP Fortify is perfect for any company that creates their own applications or uses vendor-developed ones; it’s great for QA and development phases."
"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"Excellent – from the PoC through setup and implementation; we received timely and knowledgeable support whenever we need it."
"Secure code is an important part of our day-to-day development activities, so having code out there gives us some reasonable assurance that it is not vulnerable or open to attack, and it certainly makes our overall risk posture better."
"It improves future security scans."
"The licensing was good."
"Fortify on Demand's stability is fantastic - I've never seen slowness, and it performs consistently."
 

Cons

"You can't implement proprietary ciphering algorithms, nor can you modify protocol models if you need to test customized public protocols."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"It requires understanding the Defensics protocol."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"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."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"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."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"It is cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,196 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
7%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. GitLab and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
900,196 professionals have used our research since 2012.