Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

The compared Black Duck and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in FTT , and holds a 18.3% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #14 in AS , with an average rating of 7.3, and holds a 3.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Read 4 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing reviews

1,211 Views
121 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 62 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,593 Views
4,879 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

OpenText Core Application S...

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

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)

OpenText Core Application S...

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)

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 18.3%, down 21.0% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.2% mindshare, down 4.6% since last year.

Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing	18.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	32.7%
GitLab	26.7%
Other	22.299999999999997%

Fuzz Testing Tools

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.2%
SonarQube	16.9%
Checkmarx One	9.9%
Other	70.0%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Sarath Kumar Choday

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.

Read full review

Himanshu_Tyagi

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.

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

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

"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... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

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

"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."

"The source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."

"The licensing was good."

"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."

"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."

"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 on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

"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."

"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."

"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."

"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."

"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."

"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."

"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."

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

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."

"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."

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

"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,515 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	44

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?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 11% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 10% of the time

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 8% of the time

Blue Cedar vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 8% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 17% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 11% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

January 2026

Download Defensics Protocol Fuzzing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

January 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

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

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

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

We monitor all Fuzz Testing 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.