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 #12 with an average rating of 7.3, while OWASP is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 3.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

OpenText Core Application S...

Read 62 OpenText Core Application Security reviews

6,484 Views
4,863 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,310 Views
6,725 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Core Application S...

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Core Application Security and OWASP Zap compete in application security testing. OpenText Core Application Security seems to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set and enterprise-grade alignment, whereas OWASP Zap stands out for ease of use and cost-effectiveness.

Features: OpenText Core Application Security is acclaimed for its in-depth static and dynamic analysis, seamless CI/CD integration, and expert-reviewed vulnerability results. It offers comprehensive dashboards with remediation guidance. Meanwhile, OWASP Zap is valued for its open-source accessibility, simple UI, and essential security scanning capabilities, which are advantageous for smaller setups.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Application Security could benefit from enhanced visual reporting, better false positive management, and expanded language support. OWASP Zap's documentation and advanced integration capabilities need enhancement. Improvements in support for complex architectures and reduction of false positives are also needed.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Application Security supports multiple cloud deployments with flexible enterprise options. Its customer service is proficient but could improve response times. OWASP Zap is straightforward for individual setups, mainly deployed on-premises, but requires more technical expertise for large-scale implementations. Its community-driven support is a strong compensatory factor.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Core Application Security is perceived as costly, posing a barrier for smaller companies. Nonetheless, its extensive features justify the investment for enterprises with stringent security needs, offering significant ROI through reduced security incidents. In contrast, OWASP Zap, as a free open-source solution, is an attractive choice for cost-effective security testing in smaller teams.

To learn more, read our detailed OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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)

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OWASP Zap	3.9%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.1%
Other	93.0%

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

Prasant Pokarnaa

Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies

Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed

OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

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."

"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."

"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."

"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."

"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."

"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."

"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."

"It improves future security scans."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

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

"We use the solution for security testing."

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

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

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."

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

"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."

"The products must provide better integration with build tools."

"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."

"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."

"Reporting could be improved."

"I would rate the support for OpenText at no more than three out of ten; it is really bad, and we encounter a lot of problems when getting support."

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."

"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."

"It needs more robust reporting tools."

"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."

"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."

"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."

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

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product's cost depends on the type of license."

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

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

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

"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."

"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."

"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."

"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

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

"This solution is open source and free."

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

"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."

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

"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 free to use."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	44

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

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?

It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.

See all answers

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?

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 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

Comparisons

SonarQube vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 16% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 12% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 7% of the time

GitHub vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 17% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs OWASP Zap

Compared 2% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

January 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

January 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

December 2025

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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 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.