OWASP Zap vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Why PeerSpot?

OpenText and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OpenText is ranked #7 with an average rating of 7.8, while OWASP is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 3.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 64 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

13,745 Views
9,759 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

9,843 Views
9,252 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

OpenText Core Application Security and OWASP Zap compete in the application security space. OpenText has the advantage due to its comprehensive features and enterprise focus, although OWASP Zap is favored for cost-efficiency and ease of use.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security includes detailed reporting, extensive language support, and integration into DevOps, ideal for enterprise environments. It supports robust static and dynamic code analysis with a comprehensive dashboard for vulnerability management. OWASP Zap is valued for its open-source nature, offering cost-effective basic vulnerability scanning and flexibility suited for small-scale projects and educational purposes.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security could improve by reducing false positives, enhancing integration with bug trackers, and advancing AI capabilities. Users note issues with reporting and scanning speed. OWASP Zap faces challenges with false positives, lacks robust documentation and advanced reporting, and needs better scanning accuracy and enhanced integrations for complex environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security offers deployment flexibility across on-premises, public, and hybrid cloud, though technical support can be inconsistent in responsiveness. OWASP Zap, primarily on-premises, is easy to deploy but lacks dedicated professional support, relying instead on its strong community and open-source support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is a premium product with features justifying its cost through enhanced security and integration efficiencies. OWASP Zap, being free and open-source, offers high ROI for budget-conscious users, making it attractive for smaller projects or as an additional tool in larger frameworks.

To learn more, read our detailed OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: November 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security

November 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 920,769 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 Core Application S...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

7th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (8th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.6%, up from 3.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.5%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.6%
OWASP Zap	2.5%
Other	93.9%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Himanshu_Tyagi

Lead Cybersecurity at TBO

Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration

If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

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 SAST feature is the most valuable."

"I think the most valuable feature is its ability to address the source code scanning and dynamic scanning in a known, correlated way."

"It improves future security scans."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand has saved our company money from the use of automation features."

"Overall, it is a very good tool and it works well for what it is designed for."

"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."

"We use Micro Focus Fortify on Demand to access web applications and more."

"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"They offer free access to some other tools."

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

"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, it's very difficult."

"We use the solution for security testing."

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

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

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."

"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."

"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."

"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."

"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."

"The product has a lot of false positives."

"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

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

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

"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."

"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."

"We're currently moving away from OWASP to PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional; it's more user-friendly with a better interface."

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

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

"We get too many false positives and that should definitely be improved."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."

"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."

"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."

"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."

"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."

"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."

"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

"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."

"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."

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

"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

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

920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Outsourcing Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Construction Company

University

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	46

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

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

I use Fortify on Demand for monitoring up to a certain extent; it provides monitoring and helps analyze and identify issues that could propagate in the application. When used in conjunction with Ar...

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

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 29% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

GitGuardian Platform vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Invicti Web + API vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs OWASP Zap

Compared 4% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

October 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

October 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand

No data available

Overview

OpenText Core Application Security offers robust features like static and dynamic scanning, real-time vulnerability tracking, and seamless integration with development platforms, designed to enhance code security and reduce operational costs.

OpenText Core Application Security is a cloud-based, on-demand service providing accurate and deep scanning capabilities with detailed reporting. Its integrations with development platforms ensure an enhanced security layer in the development lifecycle, benefiting users by lowering operational costs and facilitating efficient remediation. The platform addresses needs for intuitive interfaces, API support, and comprehensive vulnerability assessments, helping improve code security and accelerate time-to-market. Despite its strengths, challenges exist around false positives, report clarity, and language support, alongside confusing pricing and package options. Enhancements are sought in areas like CI/CD pipeline configuration, report visualization, scan times, and integration with third-party tools such as GitLab, container scanning, and software composition analysis.

What features define OpenText Core Application Security?

Static and Dynamic Scanning: Offers thorough analysis to identify vulnerabilities during development.
Real-time Vulnerability Tracking: Continuously updates and monitors potential security threats.
Seamless Development Platform Integration: Enhances security processes without disrupting workflows.
Cloud-Based Service: Provides flexible, on-demand security capabilities with accurate results.
API Support: Allows smooth integration and automation within existing systems.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Reduced Operational Costs: Optimizes resources by lowering costs associated with security management.
Efficient Remediation: Speeds up the process of identifying and resolving vulnerabilities.
Enhanced Code Security: Strengthens overall application security during the development lifecycle.
Accelerated Time-to-Market: Streamlines development stages by integrating essential security tools.

Industries like mobile applications, e-commerce, and banking leverage OpenText Core Application Security for its ability to identify vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. Integrating seamlessly with DevSecOps and security auditing processes, this tool supports developers in writing safer code, ensuring secure application deployment and enhancing software assurance.

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

SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.

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 Core Application Security

November 2026

Free Report: OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security

Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security 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.