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...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Defensics Protocol Fuzzing and OpenText Core Application Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about PortSwigger, GitLab, OWASP and others in Fuzz Testing Tools.

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

"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."

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

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

"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."

"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."

"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."

"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."

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

"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."

"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."

"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"

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."

"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."

"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."

"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."

"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."

"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."

"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."

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

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

"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."

"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."

"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."

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

882,410 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Government

Computer Software Company

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 10% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 10% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 9% of the time

Blue Cedar vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 8% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 7% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 19% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 10% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 6% 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.

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

January 2026

Free Report: Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

882,410 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.