OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

The compared OpenText and OWASP solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText is ranked #3 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 17.7% mindshare in the category. OWASP is ranked #11 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 4.5% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,107 Views
839 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,876 Views
7,167 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: May 2022).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Download the complete report

Helped 872,029 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:

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (9th)

OWASP Zap

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 17.7%, down 21.6% compared to last year.
OWASP Zap, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 4.5% mindshare, up 4.4% since last year.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	17.7%
HCL AppScan	14.0%
Checkmarx One	13.0%
Other	55.3%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OWASP Zap	4.5%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)	19.7%
Checkmarx One	10.0%
Other	65.8%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

RaviGupta4

Services Project Lead, Information Technology at IGT Solutions

Its ability to detect even complex vulnerabilities is invaluable

I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker. Specifically, being able to scan a particular flow or part of an application more rapidly would be beneficial. Additionally, the cost of the licensing, particularly for multiple user licenses, could be more relevant, which would improve affordability and distribution among users.

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

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."

"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

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

"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."

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

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

"The API is exceptional."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The initial setup was complex."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."

"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."

"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

"Deployment is somewhat complicated."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is okay."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"This solution is very expensive."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"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."

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

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

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

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

10%

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

10%

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

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

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

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 with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

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 websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

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 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 18% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 17% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs OWASP Zap

Compared 4% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

October 2025

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

October 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

No data available

Overview

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

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

Aaron's

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

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Free Report: OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.