We performed a comparison between Klocwork and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"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."
"There's a feature in Klocwork called 'on-the-fly analysis', which helps developers to find and fix the defects at the time of development itself."
"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."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"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."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"The main problem is that since it only parses the code, the warnings or the problems that are given as a result of the report can sometimes require a lot of effort to analyze."
"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."
"We bought Klocwork, but it was limited to one little program, but the program is now sort of failing. So, we have a license for usage on a program that is sort of failing, and we really can't use the license on anything else."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"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."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."
"The product reporting could be improved."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
Klocwork is ranked 13th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 20 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 36 reviews. Klocwork is rated 8.0, 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, CodeSonar and Checkmarx, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Veracode. See our Klocwork 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.