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."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 most valuable feature of Klocwork is finding defects while you're doing the coding. For example, if you have an IDE plug-in of Klocwork on Visual Studio or Eclipse, you can find the faults; similar to using spell check on Word, you can find out defects during the development phase, which means that you don't have to wait till the development is over to find the flaws and address the deficiencies. I also find language support in Klocwork good because it used to support only C, C++, C#, and Java, but now, it also supports Java scripts and Python."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"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 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."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"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 interface is easy to use."
"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 product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"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."
"What needs improvement in Klocwork, compared to other products in the market, is the dashboard or reporting mechanisms that need to be a bit more flexible. The Klocwork dashboard could be improved. Though it's good, it's not as good as some of the other products in the market, which is a problem. The reporting could be more detailed and easier to sort out because sorting in Klocwork could be a bit more time-consuming, mainly when sorting defects based on filters, compared to how it's done on other tools such as Coverity."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"Klocwork does have a problem with true positives. It only found 30% of true positives in the Juliet test case."
"I hope that in each new release they add new features relating to the addition of checkers, improving their analysis engines etc."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"The solution is unable to customize reports."
"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."
"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."
Klocwork is ranked 11th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 20 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th 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.