OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Name: OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing
Brand: OpenText
Rating: 4.6 (81 reviews)

Leader

Information Reimagined

Est 1991|Valuation $6.3B|Raised $14.3B

LinkedIn 550K|Website|Web traffic 1.1M|FTEs 19,900|HQ Waterloo, Ontario, CA

MarketsApplication Security Testing (AST)Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP)Web Application & API Protection (WAAP)

Platform CoversVulnerability Management Continuous Integration & Continuous Delivery (CI/CD)

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing screenshot

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where OpenText DAST tends to perform well - Integration with a broader application security portfolio: suits organizations that use Fortify or related platform components for centralized governance. - Deployment flexibility: supports SaaS, private cloud, and on-premise models. - Compliance reporting templates: vendor materials document mappings to multiple compliance frameworks. - API scanning formats: vendor documentation and datasheets indicate support for OpenAPI/Postman, GraphQL, gRPC, and SOAP. Where competitors may be stronger - Pricing transparency: some competitors provide clearer entry pricing on public pages. - Developer-first workflows: several vendors emphasize simpler onboarding for developers and CI-native experiences. - Alternative scanning approaches: some vendors position combined approaches (DAST with runtime instrumentation or verification) that may reduce tuning needs. Customer sentiment comparing products - Buyers frequently cross-shop WebInspect against Invicti, Rapid7, Burp Suite, and OWASP ZAP. Pricing, usability, and integration are recurring comparison criteria. Market share and adoption trends - Visibility metrics on review sites indicate OpenText/Fortify remains a commonly considered option in enterprise DAST evaluations. Site-specific "mindshare" metrics are not authoritative market share measurements; use industry analyst reports for formal market share analysis.

	OpenText DAST (Fortify WebInspect)	Rapid7 InsightAppSec	Invicti
Starting Price	Quote-based (not publicly listed)	Vendor publishes entry-level pricing publicly; enterprise pricing varies	Quote-based (not publicly listed)
Recommended for	Large organizations seeking integration with a broader AppSec portfolio and flexible deployment models	Organizations seeking clearer entry-level pricing and a SaaS-first experience; suitable for mid-market to enterprise	Teams seeking automated verification workflows and extensive automation options
Key Strength	Long presence in the AppSec market; integration into a broader application security portfolio; support for multiple deployment models and compliance reporting templates	Publicly documented entry pricing and a cloud-native experience; clear trial/entry paths	Emphasis on automated verification and automation; packaged messaging around broader scanning allowances
Key Weakness	Reported operational complexity, dated UI in some user feedback, and stability/resource concerns in complex environments; pricing opacity	Pricing beyond entry tiers can vary; DAST operations still require tuning and integration work	May require tuning and can be costly depending on licensing and package choices

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where OpenText DAST tends to perform well

Integration with a broader application security portfolio: suits organizations that use Fortify or related platform components for centralized governance.
Deployment flexibility: supports SaaS, private cloud, and on-premise models.
Compliance reporting templates: vendor materials document mappings to multiple compliance frameworks.
API scanning formats: vendor documentation and datasheets indicate support for OpenAPI/Postman, GraphQL, gRPC, and SOAP.

Where competitors may be stronger

Pricing transparency: some competitors provide clearer entry pricing on public pages.
Developer-first workflows: several vendors emphasize simpler onboarding for developers and CI-native experiences.
Alternative scanning approaches: some vendors position combined approaches (DAST with runtime instrumentation or verification) that may reduce tuning needs.

Customer sentiment comparing products

Buyers frequently cross-shop WebInspect against Invicti, Rapid7, Burp Suite, and OWASP ZAP. Pricing, usability, and integration are recurring comparison criteria.

Market share and adoption trends

Visibility metrics on review sites indicate OpenText/Fortify remains a commonly considered option in enterprise DAST evaluations. Site-specific "mindshare" metrics are not authoritative market share measurements; use industry analyst reports for formal market share analysis.

	OpenText DAST (Fortify WebInspect)	Rapid7 InsightAppSec	Invicti
Starting Price	Quote-based (not publicly listed)	Vendor publishes entry-level pricing publicly; enterprise pricing varies	Quote-based (not publicly listed)
Recommended for	Large organizations seeking integration with a broader AppSec portfolio and flexible deployment models	Organizations seeking clearer entry-level pricing and a SaaS-first experience; suitable for mid-market to enterprise	Teams seeking automated verification workflows and extensive automation options
Key Strength	Long presence in the AppSec market; integration into a broader application security portfolio; support for multiple deployment models and compliance reporting templates	Publicly documented entry pricing and a cloud-native experience; clear trial/entry paths	Emphasis on automated verification and automation; packaged messaging around broader scanning allowances
Key Weakness	Reported operational complexity, dated UI in some user feedback, and stability/resource concerns in complex environments; pricing opacity	Pricing beyond entry tiers can vary; DAST operations still require tuning and integration work	May require tuning and can be costly depending on licensing and package choices