Every category where a model named OpenText Fortify for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Static application security testing	Developer platform	0%	47 of 47	52%	23	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for OpenText Fortify yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated OpenText Fortify across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	2	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	3	1	4
Mistral Small	0	2	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	2	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	4	4
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct13 labels1

Paraphrase14 labelsNone

Comparative18 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained13 labelsNone

Negative26 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative92 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Coverity and Fortify are legacy heavyweights, often chosen for their ability to handle massive, multi‑language codebases” GLM 4.7 FlashX · SAST · comparative prompt · alternative

“For broadest language coverage, Checkmarx and Fortify lead.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SAST · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“High-cost, legacy platforms (like OpenText Fortify or older on-premise setups of Checkmarx)... Avoid legacy, binary-upload scanners and heavyweight on-premise engines.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SAST · negative prompt · hard negative

“Why Legacy Tools (Veracode, Checkmarx, Fortify) are Usually Wrong for Mid-Market B2B” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SAST · direct prompt · hard negative

“Tools to Avoid on a Tight Budget ... Fortify” Qwen 3.7 Flash · SAST · budget prompt · hard negative

“Traditional Fortify configurations and older Checkmarx deployments ... only detect what their rule authors anticipated ... mature but limited” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SAST · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OpenText Fortify, over the 89 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OpenText Fortify was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Checkmarx One88 of 8930Not in the top three

Semgrep74 of 8925Not in the top three

Veracode68 of 895Not in the top three

SonarQube66 of 894Not in the top three

Snyk Code53 of 896Not in the top three

CodeQL29 of 892Not in the top three

Black Duck Coverity22 of 890Not in the top three

Aikido Security21 of 892Not in the top three

GitHub Advanced Security15 of 891Not in the top three

ZeroPath13 of 891Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named OpenText Fortify. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 73 of the 89 answers that named OpenText Fortify and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appsecsanta.com51

augmentcode.com49

corgea.com46

pixee.ai41

zeropath.com40

checkmarx.com37

dev.to35

cycode.com31

aikido.dev30

ox.security29

389 of the 389 domain citations in answers naming OpenText Fortify came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

augmentcode.com/tools/enterprise-sast-tools-large-teams-field-guide42

zeropath.com/blog/best-sast-tools40

corgea.com/learn/best-sast-tools35

pixee.ai/blog/best-sast-tools-202635

appsecsanta.com/sast-tools/enterprise-sast-tools29

ox.security/blog/static-application-security-sast-tools28

cycode.com/blog/top-13-enterprise-sast-tools-for-202626

checkmarx.com/learn/sast/open-source-vs-premium-sast-tools25

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OpenText Fortify

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as OpenText Fortify; a claim can dispute any of them.

Fortify 16Fortify (Micro Focus) 1Fortify (OpenText) 1Fortify (OpenText/Micro Focus) 1Micro Focus Fortify 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when OpenText Fortify's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as OpenText Fortify, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at opentext.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.