We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Synopsys Defensics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."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."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"The API is exceptional."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"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."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"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."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
Earn 20 points
OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while Synopsys Defensics is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys Defensics writes "Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with Snyk, SonarQube, Fortify on Demand and Invicti.
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.