We performed a comparison between Klocwork and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"There's a feature in Klocwork called 'on-the-fly analysis', which helps developers to find and fix the defects at the time of development itself."
"Klocwork's most valuable feature is the static code analysis feature. It detects the potential problem earlier to allow the developer to receive feedback quickly and then address it before it becomes a problem."
"The reporting helps us understand the trend of our results and whether we improve over time. We can see the history within Klocwork's server architecture and know that we're making things better. It creates a great story for our management. We can demonstrate value and how our software is developing over time."
"It's integrated into our CI, continuous integration."
"Technical support is quite good."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"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."
"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"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 community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
"Now the only issue we have is that whenever we need to get the code we have to build it first. Then we can get the report."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"The main problem is that since it only parses the code, the warnings or the problems that are given as a result of the report can sometimes require a lot of effort to analyze."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
Klocwork is ranked 12th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 20 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Klocwork is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, Checkmarx One and CodeSonar, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional. See our Klocwork vs. OWASP Zap 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.