OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

The compared OpenText and OWASP solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText is ranked #2 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 17.9% mindshare in the category. OWASP is ranked #11 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 4.6% 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

3,330 Views
866 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,461 Views
7,700 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 867,497 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) (2nd), DevSecOps (8th)

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 17.9%, down 22.0% compared to last year.
OWASP Zap, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 4.6% mindshare, up 4.6% since last year.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	17.9%
HCL AppScan	14.3%
Checkmarx One	13.5%
Other	54.3%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OWASP Zap	4.6%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)	20.3%
Checkmarx One	9.9%
Other	65.2%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Navin N

Global ISO 27001 Program Lead at DXC Technology

Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution

We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this. Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

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 valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."

"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."

"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."

"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."

"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."

"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."

"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."

"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 most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

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

"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."

"The interface is easy to use."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."

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

"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."

"The initial setup was complex."

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

"When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

"The port scanner is a little too slow."

"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."

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

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

"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."

"Deployment is somewhat complicated."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"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."

"This solution is very expensive."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"The price is okay."

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

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

"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."

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

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

"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 solution is open source and free."

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

"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 Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Government

15%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Computer Software Company

10%

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	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 17% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security 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 19% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% 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

HCL AppScan vs OWASP Zap

Compared 4% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

August 2025

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

August 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

867,497 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.