Checkmarx SAST vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Checkmarx and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #21 with an average rating of 7.7, while OpenText is ranked #9 with an average rating of 7.8. Checkmarx holds a 2.3% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 3.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx SAST

Read 5 Checkmarx SAST reviews

5,144 Views
5,093 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

12,782 Views
9,075 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Checkmarx SAST

OpenText Core Application S...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

OpenText Core Application Security and Checkmarx SAST are competitors in the application security market. OpenText Core Application Security has a competitive edge in pricing and customer support, appealing to budget-conscious buyers, while Checkmarx SAST is favored for its feature-rich solutions, justifying its higher cost for those seeking comprehensive functionality.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security excels in integration capabilities, real-time threat analysis, and user-friendly dashboards. Checkmarx SAST stands out with comprehensive code scanning, extensive language support, and an AI-enabled unified platform covering SAST, DAST, and more.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security can enhance its language support and provide more customization options. It could also benefit from expanding its advanced scanning features. Checkmarx SAST could improve by reducing false positives, enhancing deployment simplicity, and streamlining integration with non-standard CA applications.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security is known for swift deployment and responsive customer support. Checkmarx SAST, while more feature-intensive, requires more initial setup time but compensates with satisfactory support once deployed.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security offers cost-effective solutions with a strong ROI for budget-limited businesses. In contrast, Checkmarx SAST justifies its higher pricing with deep analytical capabilities, offering significant ROI for organizations focused on comprehensive security solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 917,433 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

Checkmarx SAST

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

21st

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Core Application S...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx SAST is 2.3%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.5%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.5%
Checkmarx SAST	2.3%
Other	94.2%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Tharindu Malwenna

Senior Application Security Engineer at a newspaper with 5,001-10,000 employees

Has supported early vulnerability detection but requires tuning to reduce false positives and scanning delays

When assessing the accuracy and efficiency of Checkmarx SAST scanning capabilities, they are currently recommending that doing the full scan is the main, correct way of scanning the repositories. However, based on the repository size we have, it sometimes takes more than 10 minutes for larger repositories, which is a downside. The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities. Those are the major things that we have to fine-tune from our end. I would rate Checkmarx SAST around a seven, as it does have some false positives we have to work with, which are the major concerning things. The number of false positives is significant because we cannot implement policies because of this.

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 most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."

"The detailed reports from Checkmarx SAST help with our security process by showing details about which line is actually vulnerable, which is beneficial for the developers, and I do not have any suggestions or inputs on that area."

"This helps us a lot in identifying vulnerabilities in early stages, and the integration within the IDEs helps developers get the results into their IDE itself, making it easier for them to fix vulnerabilities."

"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."

"The CX1 is a unified platform that covers all components such as SAST, SCA, DAST, container scanning, and infrastructure code, which is quite beneficial because some clients need one-stop solutions for all their needs."

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

"The solution is very fast."

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

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

"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."

"The licensing was good."

"The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities, and it is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it."

"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

Cons

"I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in communication."

"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."

"The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities."

"The main challenge with Checkmarx SAST is the price. The price is a challenge because Checkmarx SAST is a very big brand, and many mid-sized companies cannot afford it as they are very price-conscious."

"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."

"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."

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

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"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."

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

"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."

"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

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

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

"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

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

917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Outsourcing Company

Financial Services Firm

12%

Outsourcing Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Construction Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	46

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?

We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?

I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in com...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?

I manage the application security side of the products here, currently utilizing solutions such as Checkmarx, Akamai, Traceable, and Invicti, which are the security scanning tools that we use. In t...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

I use Fortify on Demand for monitoring up to a certain extent; it provides monitoring and helps analyze and identify issues that could propagate in the application. When used in conjunction with Ar...

See all answers

Comparisons

Checkmarx One vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 13% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 9% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 8% of the time

SonarQube vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 7% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 3% of the time

More Checkmarx SAST Competitors

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 28% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

Invicti Web + API vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 1% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST

October 2026

Download Checkmarx SAST product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

October 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Also Known As

SAST

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

Overview

Checkmarx SAST provides advanced static application security testing by identifying vulnerabilities in source code. It's ideal for ISOs, security professionals, and developers striving to secure applications during development.

Checkmarx SAST is known for its powerful code scanning capabilities that integrate seamlessly into existing development environments. It supports a wide range of programming languages, which makes it applicable for diverse development projects. Some users suggest improvements in the scan performance speed and enhanced support in handling false positives to further optimize workflow efficiency.

What are the standout features of Checkmarx SAST?

Language Support: Offers broad language support catering to multiple coding frameworks.
Integration Flexibility: Seamlessly integrates with existing CI/CD pipelines and developer tools.
Comprehensive Scanning: Detects security vulnerabilities early in the development process.
Detailed Reporting: Provides comprehensive reports that help prioritize remediation efforts.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Improved Security Posture: Enhances application security by catching vulnerabilities early.
Cost Efficiency: Reduces costs associated with post-deployment issue resolution.
Developer Empowerment: Allows developers to identify and fix issues independently.
Regulatory Compliance: Assists in meeting compliance requirements efficiently.

Implemented across various industries, Checkmarx SAST supports sectors like finance, healthcare, and technology with their stringent security requirements. By integrating seamlessly into existing workflows, it ensures that applications remain secure while not disrupting industry-specific processes.

Checkmarx

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

Information Not Available

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

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security

September 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx SAST vs. OpenText Core Application Security report.

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.