Codenomicon Defensics vs. OWASP Zap

As of June 2019, Codenomicon Defensics is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 2 reviews vs OWASP Zap which is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews. The top reviewer of Codenomicon Defensics writes "Helps us complete testing more quickly by eliminating many unwanted test cases". The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". Codenomicon Defensics is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint, Coverity and Qualys Web Application Scanning. OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner and IBM Security AppScan.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Codenomicon Defensics Logo
2,785 views|492 comparisons
OWASP Zap Logo
22,201 views|14,892 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Micro Focus, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST). Updated: May 2019.
347,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs.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.

Read more »

The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool.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.It can be used effectively for internal auditing.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.Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs.​It has improved my organization with faster security tests.​The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites.

Read more »

Cons
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install.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.

Read more »

There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap.If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning.It needs more robust reporting tools.As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this.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.It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap.The port scanner is a little too slow.​It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Licensing is a bit expensive.

Read more »

OWASP Zap is free to use.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.OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate.As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out.It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
347,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
2,785
Comparisons
492
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
420
Avg. Rating
7.0
Views
22,201
Comparisons
14,892
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
412
Avg. Rating
8.4
Top Comparisons
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 65% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
Defensics
Learn
Codenomicon
Video Not Available
OWASP
Overview
Defensics is a next-generation security testing platform that enables builders and users of technology to rapidly, reliably and efficiently find and correct dangerous errors and flaws. By proactively bringing the unknown into total view, Defensics sets the bar for superior vulnerability management.

Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) is a free, open-source penetration testing tool being maintained under the umbrella of the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). ZAP is designed specifically for testing web applications and is both flexible and extensible.

Offer
Learn more about Codenomicon Defensics
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Sample Customers
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Micro Focus, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST). Updated: May 2019.
347,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.

Sign Up with Email