Compare Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
70,658 views|38,075 comparisons
OWASP Zap Logo
32,884 views|22,324 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
502,335 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
"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.""The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries.""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."

More Veracode Pros »

"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution.""t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.""This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market.""The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira.""Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good.""The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them.""Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much.""The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."

More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Pros »

"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.""The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application.""The stability of the solution is very good."

More OWASP Zap Pros »

Cons
"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.""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."

More Veracode Cons »

"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment.""The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.""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.""This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect.""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.""The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools.""In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful.""It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."

More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Cons »

"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.""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."

More OWASP Zap Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"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.""If I compare the pricing with other software tools, then it is quite competitive. Whatever the price is, they have always given us a good discount.""Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive.""We use this product per project rather than per developer... Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive."

More Veracode Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition.""It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved.""It is cost-effective.""Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide.""We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price.""The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."

More Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Pricing and Cost Advice »

"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.
502,335 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: It's comprehensive from a feature standpoint.
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 »
Top Answer: The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation.
Top Answer: We pay for licensing. We do pay an extra cost for implementing the infrastructure into the cloud.
Top Answer: There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new… more »
Top Answer: The stability of the solution is very good.
Top Answer: The solution is open-source. It doesn't cost anything to use it.
Top Answer: The technical support could be improved. It doesn't offer traditional technical support at all. It would be a great… more »
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Fortify on Demand
Learn More
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, Rekner
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm30%
Insurance Company10%
Computer Software Company10%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm10%
Manufacturing Company6%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm35%
Retailer18%
Computer Software Company12%
Energy/Utilities Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company34%
Comms Service Provider14%
Financial Services Firm11%
Government6%
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company22%
Retailer11%
Manufacturing Company11%
Transportation Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company32%
Comms Service Provider23%
Government6%
Media Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise51%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business22%
Midsize Enterprise30%
Large Enterprise48%
REVIEWERS
Small Business26%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise59%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise66%
REVIEWERS
Small Business16%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise58%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
502,335 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 14 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 6th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 10 reviews. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand writes "Makes it easy to discover hidden vulnerabilities in our open source libraries". 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, Fortify WebInspect and WhiteSource, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect and HCL AppScan. See our Micro Focus Fortify on Demand 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.