OWASP Zap vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

OpenText and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OpenText is ranked #9 with an average rating of 7.7, while OWASP is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 3.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.1% 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

8,536 Views
6,146 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,361 Views
7,692 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: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 893,221 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)

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (12th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

15th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.1%, 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 (%)
OpenText Core Application Security	3.1%
OWASP Zap	3.1%
Other	93.8%

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

Nithin-K

Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features

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 Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. 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.

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 features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."

"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."

"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is a very easy-to-use solution."

"The SAST feature is the most valuable."

"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."

"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."

"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."

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

"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."

"The automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy, and the major advantage to this solution is the privacy it offers."

"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

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

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

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

"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."

"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."

"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."

"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."

"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."

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

"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."

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."

"It's possibly just a limitation of the product itself but sometimes it won't scan a particular website so you have to manually go in and make some configuration changes."

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

"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."

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

"The computers perform somewhat slowly when loading a large number of queries into memory."

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

"We have had stability issues a few times."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."

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

"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."

"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."

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

"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."

"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."

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

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

"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."

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

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

"This solution is open source and free."

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

"The tool is open source."

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

"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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Computer Software Company

Government

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	45

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...

See all answers

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

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?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 19% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 4% of the time

FortiDevSec vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Pentest-Tools.com vs OWASP Zap

Compared 3% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

April 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

April 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

April 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: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

893,221 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.