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 16.0%, down 25.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.1% mindshare, down 4.4% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing16.0%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional33.6%
GitLab29.2%
Other21.200000000000003%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.1%
SonarQube13.6%
Checkmarx One8.8%
Other74.5%
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

"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."
"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."
"Simple and straightforward GUI."
"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."
"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."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."
"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 source code analyzer is the most effective for identifying security vulnerabilities."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide, as it can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it, and overall the features are easy to use so anyone can use it, making it quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"Fortify on Demand is a very good service which can be used by any organization when they are building a team because it identifies security vulnerabilities early in the software development life cycle and provides good visibility into issues in cloud-hosted applications."
"It improves future security scans."
 

Cons

"You can't implement proprietary ciphering algorithms, nor can you modify protocol models if you need to test customized public protocols."
"It requires understanding the Defensics protocol."
"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."
"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."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"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."
"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."
"The only thing that comes to mind regarding room for improvement are the security vulnerability updates."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"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."
"I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"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."
"I find that while it does find a lot of legitimate threats, it tends to have a lot of false positives, and there are more false positives than I would like to see."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"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."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
892,646 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise45
 

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.
892,646 professionals have used our research since 2012.