Compare Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
66,657 views|35,722 comparisons
OWASP Zap Logo
28,128 views|20,017 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,275 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
Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution.The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries.Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence.Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process.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.I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.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.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.

More Veracode Pros »

Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good.The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira.This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market.t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution.The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it.I do not remember any issues with stability.The licensing was good.

More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Pros »

The interface is easy to use.Simple to use, good user interface.Automatic updates and pull request analysis.The scalability of this product 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 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.

More OWASP Zap Pros »

Cons
One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive.I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan.Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apkIt needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects.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.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.I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.

More Veracode Cons »

The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood.This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect.The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to.The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment.Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse.There were some regulated compliances, which were not there.Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues.

More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Cons »

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

More OWASP Zap Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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.They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.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.Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.

More Veracode Pricing and Cost Advice »

The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition.It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount.The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server.The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps.

More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Pricing and Cost Advice »

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

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.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Popular Comparisons
Compared 51% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 64% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Also Known As
Fortify on Demand
Learn
Veracode
Micro Focus
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.

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand’s application security-as-a-service is the easy and flexible way to identify vulnerabilities in your applications without additional investment in software or personnel. Allow our global team to work for you, providing support and technical expertise 24/7.

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 Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, ReknerSAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm34%
Insurance Company14%
Consumer Goods Company7%
Healthcare Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company44%
Comms Service Provider12%
Media Company6%
Insurance Company5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm42%
Retailer17%
Energy/Utilities Company8%
Government8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company46%
Comms Service Provider11%
Government7%
Media Company5%
REVIEWERS
Aerospace/Defense Firm14%
Energy/Utilities Company14%
Manufacturing Company14%
Marketing Services Firm14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company45%
Comms Service Provider12%
Media Company9%
Government6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise53%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise72%
REVIEWERS
Small Business24%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise66%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business15%
Midsize Enterprise7%
Large Enterprise78%
REVIEWERS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise56%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 7.6, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand writes "Detects vulnerabilities and provides useful suggestions, but doesn't understand complex websites". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Coverity, HCL AppScan and Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner, Qualys Web Application Scanning, HCL AppScan and Checkmarx. See our Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap report. /' We've helped 431,275 professionals make an informed decision, / with our validated product reviews, independent rankings, and peer opinions. /.promo-video-link / = link_to('See how it works.', '#', id: 'gitb-video-pane-open', / data: { :'video-link' => 'https://www.youtube.com/embed/RVO4FHQxGVM', :'video-width' => '640', :'video-height' => '360' }) /br

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.