OWASP Zap vs Synopsys Defensics comparison

The compared OWASP and Black Duck solutions aren't in the same category. OWASP is ranked #8 in SAST , with an average rating of 7.8, and holds a 4.7% mindshare in the category. Black Duck is ranked #5 in FTT , and holds a 25.3% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OWASP users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

OWASP Zap

Read 40 OWASP Zap reviews

10,358 Views
5,896 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Synopsys Defensics

Read 4 Synopsys Defensics reviews

131 Views
79 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Synopsys Defensics

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Synopsys Defensics 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: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,491 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

OWASP Zap

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th)

Synopsys Defensics

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OWASP Zap is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 4.7%, down 5.0% compared to last year.
Synopsys Defensics, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 25.3% mindshare, up 14.4% since last year.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Fuzz Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

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

it_user508521

Senior Lead Engineer - Product Security at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Helps us complete testing more quickly by eliminating many unwanted test cases

Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application, and from that we can generate automated test cases, but what happens on the target device, what is the reason for the crash, for that we have to do manual debugging. They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful. They can improve a lot on that.

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

"OWASP Zap is a good tool, one of my favorites for a long time, and I would recommend it."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"We use the solution for security testing."

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

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

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."

"They offer free access to some other tools."

More OWASP Zap pros

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

Cons

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."

"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."

"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."

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

"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

More OWASP Zap cons

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"This solution is open source and free."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"The tool is open source."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

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

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

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

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

850,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

22%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 21% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 16% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 31% of the time

Snyk vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 13% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 9% of the time

Invicti vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 8% of the time

More Synopsys Defensics Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

April 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Buyer's Guide

GitLab vs. Synopsys Defensics

April 2025

Download Synopsys Defensics product report

Also Known As

No data available

Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics

Overview

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

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

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

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

April 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.