OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

The compared OpenText and OWASP solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText is ranked #3 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 18.1% mindshare in the category. OWASP is ranked #11 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 4.7% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,484 Views
906 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,982 Views
8,174 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: May 2022).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 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 Dynamic Applicatio...

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (10th)

OWASP Zap

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 18.1%, down 22.7% compared to last year.
OWASP Zap, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 4.7% mindshare, up 4.7% since last year.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Navin N

Global ISO 27001 Program Lead at DXC Technology

Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution

We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this. Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

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 solution's technical support was very helpful."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."

"Technical support has been good."

"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

"The scalability of this product is very good."

"I consider OWASP Zap to be the most effective solution overall; being open source allows integration with other systems via OWASP Zap APIs."

"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 ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."

"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."

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

"Simple to use, good user interface."

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

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

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

"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 automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"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."

"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."

"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."

"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."

"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"The price is okay."

"This solution is very expensive."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

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

"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 solution’s pricing is high."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

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

"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."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Computer Software Company

10%

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?

The solution's technical support was very helpful.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

The price of Fortify WebInspect is high, with the cost depending on the number of virtual users. It is approximately 25% higher than other solutions.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate. The cost of the license depends on the number of virtual users and, in comparison to...

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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 18% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 19% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OWASP Zap

Compared 4% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

August 2025

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

August 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

No data available

Overview

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

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

Aaron's

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 Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Free Report: OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OWASP Zap vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.