We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect 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."The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"Technical support has been good."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"The initial setup was complex."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"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."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"The product reporting could be improved."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Qualys Web Application Scanning, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Invicti. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. OWASP Zap 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.