Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Fortify on Demand vs OWASP Zap vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Fortify on Demand is 4.1%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.0%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"It improves future security scans."
"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."
"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."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps."
"I have found the best features to be the performance and there are a lot of additional plugins available."
"The most valuable features of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional are its ease of use and its cost efficiency."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"The technical support from PortSwigger is excellent, managing response time and quality efficiently without any issues."
"The automated scan is what I find most useful because a lot of customers will need it. Not every domain will be looking for complete security, they just need a stamp on the security key. For these kinds of customers, the scan works really well."
 

Cons

"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"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."
"There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
"There needs to be better documentation provided. Currently, we need to buy books, or we need to review online some use cases from other professionals who have been using the solution to find out their experience. It is not easy to find out how to properly do a security assessment."
"I would like to see the return of the spider mechanism instead of the crawling feature. Burp Suite's earlier version 1.7 had an excellent spider option, and it would be beneficial if Burp incorporated those features into the current version. The crawling techniques used in the current version are not as efficient as those used in earlier versions."
"Scanning APIs using PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional takes a lot of time."
"The vendor must provide documentation on how to use the new API feature."
"I need the solution to be more user-friendly. The solution needs to be user-friendly."
"It should provide a better way to integrate with Jenkins so that DAST (dynamic application security testing) can be automated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"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."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"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."
"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."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
"The tool is open-source."
"This solution is open source and free."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
"The tool is open source."
"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."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"They should reduce the license cost a little bit. It is $400 per user, and it would be better if they could reduce the licensing fee."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"PortSwigger is a bit expensive."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"Pricing is not very high. It was around $200."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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.
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...
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 ...
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...
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...
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.
What do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The dashboard of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional could be made more user-friendly.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
No data available
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.