Fortify Software Security Center vs OWASP Zap comparison

OpenText and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 9.0, while OWASP is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 1.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Fortify Software Security C...

Read 8 Fortify Software Security Center reviews

2,178 Views
2,091 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,774 Views
8,072 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Fortify Software Security C...

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Fortify Software Security Center and OWASP Zap compete in the security domain. Fortify appears to have an upper hand in support and pricing, while OWASP Zap is preferred for its features.

Features: Fortify Software Security Center offers comprehensive security testing capabilities, strong integration with enterprise systems, and extensive reporting tools. In contrast, OWASP Zap provides open-source accessibility, broad vulnerability finding, and adaptive customization options. Fortify is noted for its robust security, whereas Zap is highlighted for its flexibility and coverage.

Room for Improvement: Fortify users seek faster scanning, improved user-friendliness, and more intuitive interfaces. OWASP Zap users desire a richer feature set, better fit for complex environments, and enhanced usability features. Fortify focuses on optimizing technical performance, while OWASP Zap aims to broaden its functionality scope and enrich its toolset.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Fortify Software Security Center is known for its professional support services but faces challenges with deployment complexity. OWASP Zap offers simpler deployment but lacks dedicated support, relying on community assistance. Fortify emphasizes a structured support system, whereas Zap provides easy startup without extensive guidance.

Pricing and ROI: Fortify Software Security Center involves higher upfront costs, with users reporting favorable ROI due to comprehensive security assurance. OWASP Zap attracts with a cost-effective model, offering satisfactory returns through minimal initial expenditure and open-source advantages. Fortify's ROI is linked to its extensive features, while Zap offers value through cost efficiency.

To learn more, read our detailed Fortify Software Security Center vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Fortify Software Security Center vs. OWASP Zap

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,644 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

Fortify Software Security C...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

19th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

4.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

14th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 1.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.9%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OWASP Zap	2.9%
Fortify Software Security Center	1.5%
Other	95.6%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Diego Caicedo Lescano

Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA

Enables centralized analysis and improves governance through seamless tool integration

The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console. You can centralize both static analysis and dynamic analysis, and correlate both analyses in one tool to get better results by combining those independent results from each solution. That is outstanding, and there is no tool I have seen on the market that offers these capabilities. I appreciate the interoperability with other solutions from Fortify Software Security Center. Because we are using Kiuwan, you can run Kiuwan analyses and integrate them with Fortify Software Security Center to get those results in a single console. That is a good console for centralizing things in one point. That is one of the best features of the on-premises Fortify.

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

"It's very important because they want to scan their source code every day, so we provide CICD integration to our customers so they can auto build and auto test every day, get reports, and fix issues."

"The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console."

"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."

"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."

"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."

"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."

"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."

"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."

More Fortify Software Security Center pros

"The pull request analysis is also very good."

"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

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

"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 product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The HUD, Heads Up Display, is a good feature; it provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."

"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."

"The support for Fortify on-premises is the same as for the other products. I would say the support is not good and I would rate it a three out of ten."

"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."

"The initial setup of this solution is very complex. Specifically, the integration between other parts of the solution is difficult."

"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."

"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."

"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."

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

"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 solution is unable to customize reports."

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

"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."

"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

"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."

"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."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."

"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."

"The solution is priced fair."

"The tool is open source."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

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

"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."

"The tool is open-source."

"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."

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

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

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

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Government

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	3

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	22

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Software Security Center?

The pricing for the on-premises Fortify is expensive.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?

In my opinion, there are no areas that could be improved with Fortify Software Security Center. I would say it is a good product and a mature product. However, the SAST has many improvement areas. ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?

We have installed Fortify Static Code Analysis, SAST, in Ecuador in two customers. The Fortify ScanCentral includes three components: SAST, Fortify Software Security Center, and the WebInspect.

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 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

What needs improvement with OWASP Zap?

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postm...

See all answers

Comparisons

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 22% of the time

Checkmarx IaC Security / KICS vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 12% of the time

SonarQube vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 7% of the time

Coverity Static vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 7% of the time

More Fortify Software Security Center Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

May 2026

Download Fortify Software Security Center product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

June 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect

No data available

Overview

Fortify Software Security Center offers comprehensive application security through a centralized console that integrates static and dynamic analysis, making it essential for organizations focused on robust security operations.

Fortify Software Security Center delivers extensive capabilities that facilitate application security testing, code audits, and bug fixes. Its centralized console enhances governance and control, while its interoperability with tools like Kiuwan and Azure strengthens its functionality. The dashboard's intuitive data customization, along with the ability to store and report data on-premises, further complements its integration capabilities. Although improvements in dataset aggregation, integration with tools like Jira, and resolution of false positives are required, its ability to scan and analyze source code to identify security violations is acknowledged.

What are the key features of Fortify Software Security Center?

Centralized Console: Streamlines governance and control through combined static and dynamic analysis.
Interoperability: Enhances functionality with tools like Kiuwan for comprehensive testing.
Customizability: Tailors vulnerability testing to standards such as OWASP Top Ten.
Macro Recording: Facilitates multi-factor authentication processes.
CI/CD Integration: Ensures seamless integration with development workflows.
Collaboration Module: Supports teamwork with clarification on issues.
Daily Scanning: Elevates code quality through regular evaluations.

Why should users consider Fortify Software Security Center for ROI?

Code Quality Enhancement: Improves coding practices through continuous deployment and daily scanning.
Seamless Deployment: Enhances implementation success and mitigates security threats effectively.
Customization Flexibility: Offers tailored solutions for overlapping features despite increased costs.
Collaboration Efficiency: Boosts teamwork through detailed issue explanations and analysis.

Fortify Software Security Center is adopted in software-driven industries for its robust application security capabilities. Users in technology sectors rely on its static code analysis for auditing and security testing. Its on-premises deployment model and integration with platforms like Azure make it ideal for storing and reporting data, providing customization that aligns with industry standards.

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

Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon

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

Fortify Software Security Center vs. OWASP Zap

June 2026

Free Report: Fortify Software Security Center vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Software Security Center vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Fortify Software Security Center vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

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.