Acunetix vs OWASP Zap vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.4, while OpenText is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 3.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 3.6% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,850 Views
3,803 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 60 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,920 Views
5,328 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,876 Views
7,167 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OpenText Core Application S...

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Acunetix, OpenText Core Application Security, and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,706 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:

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.6%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.5%, up from 4.4% 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 (%)
OWASP Zap	4.5%
Acunetix	3.1%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.6%
Other	88.8%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

Jonathan Steyn

Principal Technical Consultant at EOH

Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis

Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

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 product is really easy to use."

"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."

"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."

"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."

"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."

"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."

More Acunetix pros

"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."

"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."

"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."

"Speed and efficiency are great features."

"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."

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

"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."

"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

"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

"We use the solution for security testing."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The interface is easy to use."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"Acunetix should improve by further reducing false positives and providing more customized reports, plus better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps."

"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."

"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."

"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."

More Acunetix cons

"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."

"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."

".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."

"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."

"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."

"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."

"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."

"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."

"The product reporting could be improved."

"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."

"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."

"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."

"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"The solution is expensive."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"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."

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

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

"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."

"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."

"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."

"The solution is a little expensive."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"This solution is open source and free."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

More OWASP Zap 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

868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	43

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning t...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetrati...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOp...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the ...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan web...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 13% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 18% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 3% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

September 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

September 2025

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

September 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

No data available

Overview

Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

Invicti

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

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

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

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

September 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.