OpenText Fortify on Demand

Name: OpenText Fortify on Demand
Brand: OpenText
Rating: 4.4 (171 reviews)

Leader

Information Reimagined

Est 1991|Valuation $6.1B|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)Security Service Edge (SSE)SAST

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Versus Veracode: industry comparison summaries place both products in frequent head-to-head evaluation; both have strengths and trade-offs around developer experience and false-positive behavior. Public commentary suggests Fortify's pricing/consumption model and integration characteristics are common comparison points.
Versus best-of-breed tools: some organizations elect to combine specialized SAST or DAST tools with complementary products rather than using a single-suite approach, depending on the relative maturity of modules and the organization's tolerance for compromise across features.

- Versus Veracode: industry comparison summaries place both products in frequent head-to-head evaluation; both have strengths and trade-offs around developer experience and false-positive behavior. Public commentary suggests Fortify's pricing/consumption model and integration characteristics are common comparison points. - Versus best-of-breed tools: some organizations elect to combine specialized SAST or DAST tools with complementary products rather than using a single-suite approach, depending on the relative maturity of modules and the organization's tolerance for compromise across features.

Market adoption indicators

Vendor communications describe analyst recognitions and customer feedback awards as part of marketing materials. These recognitions should be validated against the issuing analyst or peer-review platform for detailed methodology and coverage.

	OpenText Fortify on Demand	Veracode	Checkmarx One
Starting Price	Quote-based; consumption-unit pricing model; trial availability varies	Typically quote-based subscription	Typically quote-based subscription
Typical Fit	Enterprises seeking multi-method AST under a single vendor and those that require expert review services	Organizations prioritizing developer-centric SaaS workflows and structured remediation guidance	Organizations emphasizing CI/CD-native workflows and code-centric automation
Strengths (observed)	Multi-method testing under a single SaaS portal; vendor-provided expert review options	Market positioning around developer workflows and false-positive management (vendor claims)	Positioning around modern DevSecOps integration and developer tools
Weaknesses (observed)	Public review signals cite false positives, scan speed variability, and CI/CD integration effort; consumption-unit model adds forecasting complexity	Some organizations cite cost and UX concerns in public commentary	Can require tuning and carries enterprise-level pricing complexity