OpenText Core Application Security vs Software Risk Manager ASPM comparison

OpenText and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.3, while Black Duck is ranked #30. OpenText holds a 3.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution.

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 62 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,484 Views
4,863 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Software Risk Manager ASPM

Read 1 Software Risk Manager ASPM review

1,068 Views
790 Comparison Views

0% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Software Risk Manager ASPM

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and Software Risk Manager ASPM are competing in enhancing application security within enterprises. OpenText Core Application Security has the upper hand in cost-effectiveness and customer support, while Software Risk Manager ASPM leads in feature set and long-term investment value.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security provides robust vulnerability scanning, seamless integration with development workflows, and quick threat detection. Software Risk Manager ASPM offers extensive security analytics, comprehensive risk management, and sophisticated threat modeling.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security is recognized for its quick and simple deployment process and responsive customer service. Software Risk Manager ASPM, though more complex to deploy, provides personalized consulting services and extensive training resources.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security presents a competitive setup cost appealing to budget-conscious organizations, delivering significant ROI through efficient security processes. Software Risk Manager ASPM requires a higher upfront investment but ensures greater long-term value with advanced features reducing risk exposure.

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,282 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

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th)

Software Risk Manager ASPM

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

30th

Average Rating

0.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (21st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (15th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Software Risk Manager ASPM is 0.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.1%
Software Risk Manager ASPM	0.8%
Other	96.1%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

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

Saravanan_Radhakrishnan

Senior Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies

Facilitates continuous assessment of applications, covering both static and dynamic security aspects

Code Dx lacks one aspect, the dynamic security part, known as DAST. It's not an on-premise solution; it's in the cloud now. There are compliance standards and data standards where the customer might need to have the data on-premises for dynamic security testing. So that is one shortfall. An area of improvement could be developing an on-premise DAST solution. The current one is a complete cloud-based solution, and that can be one of the areas of improvement.

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 most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."

"The best features with Fortify on Demand include having analysis for any product based on analysis points."

"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."

"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."

"The solution is user-friendly. One feature I find very effective is the tool's automatic scanning capability. It scans replicas of the code developers write and automatically detects any vulnerabilities. The integration with CI/CD tools is also useful for plugins."

"The user interface is good."

"I do not remember any issues with stability."

"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"The customers were looking for something around static security and dynamic security, and in all those areas, they were looking for an industry leader with a proven solution. Synopsys is a Gartner leader, so I position this particular technology for the technical pre-sales part of it."

Cons

"It would be highly beneficial if Fortify on Demand incorporated runtime analysis, similar to how Contrast Security utilizes agents for proactive application security."

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

"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."

"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."

"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."

"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."

"There are many false positives identified by the solution."

"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

"The initial setup is a bit challenging because things are not easy. It needs a lot of technology adaptability plus the customer's environment-specific use cases."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."

"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."

"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."

"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."

"The solution is a little expensive."

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

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

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

"It is more of an enterprise solution for budget-conscious customers. So, it's moderately priced. It's not for everybody."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

No data available

Questions from the Community

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 17% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 12% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Software Risk Manager ASPM

Compared 16% of the time

Snyk vs Software Risk Manager ASPM

Compared 10% of the time

Polaris Platform vs Software Risk Manager ASPM

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs Software Risk Manager ASPM

Compared 9% of the time

Cycode vs Software Risk Manager ASPM

Compared 3% of the time

More Software Risk Manager ASPM Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

January 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)

January 2026

Download Software Risk Manager ASPM product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Code Dx

Overview

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

Software Risk Manager is an application security posture management (ASPM) solution that enables security and development teams to manage their application security programs at enterprise scale. By unifying policy, test orchestration, correlation, prioritization, and built-in static application security testing (SAST) and software composition analysis (SCA) engines, organizations can streamline their security activities across the enterprise.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

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

Discover why companies like: CGI said, "Synopsys and Software Risk Manager have provided the results we’re looking for".

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.