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 866,755 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 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."

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

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."

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

"The solution is easy to use."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

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

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

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

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

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"Simple to use, good user interface."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."

"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."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"We have often encountered scanning errors."

"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."

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

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"It needs more robust reporting tools."

"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"The price is okay."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

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

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

"The solution’s pricing is high."

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

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

"The tool is open-source."

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

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

See recommendations

866,755 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 do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?

The solution's technical support was very helpful.

See all answers

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

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

866,755 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.