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 #9 with an average rating of 8.2. OpenText holds a 3.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.4% 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

6,712 Views
4,967 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,440 Views
6,845 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: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Core Application Security

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 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

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (13th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

9th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.0%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.4%, down from 4.8% 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	3.4%
OpenText Core Application Security	3.0%
Other	93.6%

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

"This identification provides us an advantage in that the service itself works to stay abreast and knowledgeable about emerging threats."

"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."

"HP Fortify is perfect for any company that creates their own applications or uses vendor-developed ones; it’s great for QA and development phases."

"The process was easy to follow and we were supported 24/7 by TAM personnel to help with any fire drills, which was helpful many times when I needed a quick answer late at night or early in the morning."

"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."

"The solution is very fast."

"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."

"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."

More OpenText Core Application Security pros

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

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

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

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

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."

"It could use better integration with the incident management processor."

"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."

"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects."

"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."

"The cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions."

"The only thing that comes to mind regarding room for improvement are the security vulnerability updates."

"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."

More OpenText Core Application Security cons

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."

"The product reporting could be improved."

"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."

"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."

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

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

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

"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."

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

"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."

"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

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

"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."

"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."

More OpenText Core Application Security pricing and cost advice

"The tool is open-source."

"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."

"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."

"This solution is open source and free."

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

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

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

14%

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 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 20% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

Coverity Static vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 5% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs OpenText Core Application Security

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Core Application Security Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 13% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 13% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs OWASP Zap

Compared 3% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Application Security

March 2026

OpenText Core Application Security report

Download OpenText Core Application Security product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 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

March 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: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 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.