Compare GitLab vs. OWASP Zap

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
69,050 views|36,935 comparisons
GitLab Logo
5,575 views|4,884 comparisons
OWASP Zap Logo
29,332 views|20,585 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: September 2020.
442,041 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
"One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.""It has an easy-to-use interface.""We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle.""The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.""I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.""We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.""Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process.""Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence."

More Veracode Pros »

"The dashboard and interface make it easy to use.""We like that we can create branches and then the branches can be reviewed and you can mesh those branches back. You can independently work with your own branch, you don't need to really control the core of other people.""Everything is easy to configure and easy to work with.""A user friendly solution.""It speeds up our development, it's faster, safer, and more convenient."

More GitLab Pros »

"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 OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool.""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 scalability of this product is very good.""Automatic updates and pull request analysis.""Simple to use, good user interface.""The interface is easy to use."

More OWASP Zap Pros »

Cons
"We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.""Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.""I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.""Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.""One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications.""It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects.""Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk""I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan."

More Veracode Cons »

"GitLab doesn't have AWS integration. It would be better to have integration with other container management environments beyond Kubernetes. It has very good integration with Kubernetes, but it doesn't have good integration with, for example, AWS, ETS, etc.""I would like to see static analysis also embedded in GitLab. That would also help us. If there's something that it does internally by GitLab and then that is already tied up with your pipeline and then it can tell you that you're coding is good or your code is not great. Based on that, it would pass or fail. That should be streamlined. I would think that would help to a greater extent, in terms of having one solution rather than depending on multiple vendors.""The only thing our company is really waiting on in terms of features is the development of metrics.""Reporting could be improved.""I would like to see better integration with project management tools such as Jira."

More GitLab Cons »

"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.""There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap.""The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified.""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.""I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers.""Deployment is somewhat complicated.""Too many false positives; test reports could be improved.""The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

More OWASP Zap Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.""No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.""They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works.""They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.""For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization.""I don't really know about the pricing, but I'd say it's worth whatever Veracode is charging, because the solution is that good.""Veracode's price is high. I would like them to better optimize their pricing."

More Veracode Pricing and Cost Advice »

"I think that we pay approximately $100 USD per month."

More GitLab Pricing and Cost Advice »

"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 free to use.""This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing.""This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

More OWASP Zap Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
442,041 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: Veracode has offered a dynamic analysis testing solution for several years, having launched our first offering in 2015… more »
Top Answer: I would recommend them. They have the ability to cover multiple languages and come with all the features you would… more »
Top Answer: SonarQube depends on completely what you configure the Rules. You will have the option of the Profile creation and can… more »
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Top Answer: por ahora estoy usando Owasp Zap, es muy intuitivo y sus reportes muy detallados, probe con burp suite pero no me… more »
Top Answer: Automatic updates and pull request analysis.
Top Answer: The product is somewhat complicated and could be improved by simplifying it because you don't want to have to allocate… more »
Popular Comparisons
Compared 50% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 63% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Learn
Veracode
GitLab
OWASP
Overview

Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects.

GitLab is a single application with features for the whole software development and operations (DevOps) lifecycle.

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 Veracode
Learn more about GitLab
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, ReknerSiemens, University of Washington, Equinix, Paessler AG, CNCF, Ticketmaster, CERN, Vaadin
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm34%
Insurance Company13%
Retailer6%
Pharma/Biotech Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company40%
Comms Service Provider14%
Media Company6%
Financial Services Firm5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company32%
Comms Service Provider15%
Government7%
Media Company6%
REVIEWERS
Retailer14%
Manufacturing Company14%
Transportation Company14%
Aerospace/Defense Firm14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company43%
Comms Service Provider15%
Media Company7%
Government5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise55%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business15%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise69%
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise56%
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: September 2020.
442,041 professionals have used our research since 2012.
GitLab is ranked 14th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 5 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 6th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Provides or mandates quantitative code into the Master". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Tekton, TeamCity, Bamboo and CircleCI, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner, Qualys Web Application Scanning, WebInspect and HCL AppScan. See our GitLab vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.

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.