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 most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

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

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."

"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."

More Acunetix pros

"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."

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

"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."

"The SAST feature is the most valuable."

"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."

"It's a stable and scalable solution."

"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."

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

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"The API is exceptional."

"Simple to use, good user interface."

"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."

"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."

"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."

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

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."

"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."

"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

More Acunetix cons

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."

"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."

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

"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."

"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."

"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."

".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."

"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

"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."

"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

"OWASP Zap could benefit from a noise cancellation feature like that of Burp Suite Professional, where AI helps reduce certain non-critical findings."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."

"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."

"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."

"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."

"The solution is expensive."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The solution is a little expensive."

"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."

"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."

"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."

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

"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

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

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

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

"The solution’s pricing is high."

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

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

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.