ImmuniWeb vs OWASP Zap comparison

"ImmuniWeb is stable."

"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."

"ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. The solution is highly stable. The solution is scalable. Editing Key Points for Review "Review about ImmuniWeb" What is our primary use case? We use the solution when we face challenges and urgent attention is needed for complex cases from our clients. To address this, we collaborate with the middleware, internal, and client teams to analyze and sort through intricate logs concerning our business cybersecurity program. How has it helped my organization? The solution helped us with one of our clients in the New York area contacted us about a data breach. In response, we swiftly organized a case meeting involving our client, internal, and email customer support teams. Together, we conducted an incident response, facilitating offline assistance for proper planning and risk management processes. We delved into the details of the data breach, identified how it occurred, and collaborated to rectify the issue. The client expressed satisfaction with the resolution process. What is most valuable? ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. It also focuses on consumer satisfaction and operates in English-speaking markets, primarily required by the UAE, the United States, Canada, and Australia, among other developed countries. For how long have I used the solution? We have been using this product for the past one and half years. What do I think about the stability of the solution? The solution is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. How are customer service and support? Support is generally excellent"

"After the assessment, you clearly know which assets require penetration testing."

"The initial setup process is user-friendly."

"The most valuable features are the SLA of Zero false-positives, less time of service development, validation of unlimited patched vulnerabilities, and several others."

"I like the fully automated continuous discovery run by ImmuniWeb in the background. We do not need to rerun the same tests or the same scanning against our resources. We need to supply our IP addresses, domain names, and significant resources with special domain names and URLs, and we need to do it only once. Then we always have an up-to-date picture. I also like the integration with our single sign-on system. We do not need to maintain a separate set of usernames or user accounts. We can plug this ImmuniWeb service into our authentication technology, enabling two-factor authentication. We have secure authentication right out of the box. The other important feature I like is the executive view. You can easily switch from a technical view to an executive view and have a helicopter view of the compliance status. We can see how much effort is required and our current status."

"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."

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

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

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

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

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

"Simple and easy to learn and master."

"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."

"A great idea would be to support using Discovery on the internal network, allowing delivery of all the features of the current Discovery to internal network resources."

"It would be better if they had an automated tagging feature. The tagging functionality currently requires manual tagging, and that's probably the most needed feature from my standpoint. We also do not have enough tools, enough features, or options to display different resources in the way we need. There are basic grouping and some filtering features, but we still cannot fully separate some flavors of our resources. However, we may not be aware of the latest features."

"The deployment process on the cloud is straightforward, while on-premise can be complex. Support is generally excellent, although there can be delays in ticket resolution."

"A great idea would be to make a mobile application for the ImmuniWeb portal so that all information would be available on the go and from a mobile phone as well. It would be much more convenient."

"Its technical support could be better."

"The product’s interface for the web applications could be similar to Android and iOS versions."

"ImmuniWeb sometimes shows previous scans instead of running tests."

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

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

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

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

"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 work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."

"There should be the flexibility to change or add pricing, especially for pay-per-use cases."

"It is pretty expensive."

"The values of ImmuniWeb are currently significantly below what is valued in the Chilean market for these services and solutions."

"It is pretty expensive."

"I use the product's free version. The tool costs around 229 dollars."

"ImmuniWeb is relatively cheap. It's a competitive price compared to other products in the marketplace. It's worth the money we are paying for it."

"The platform is expensive if a large development is involved. However, it is less expensive for scheduled-based testing, quarterly or in a year."

"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'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."

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

"The tool is open source."

"The tool is open-source."

"This solution is open source and free."

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

"The solution’s pricing is high."