Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
397,717 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
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.
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.
The interface is user-friendly and easy to understand.
The simplicity of exporting reports and the simplicity and clarity of the reports included with the product are good.
With our vulnerabilities under control, it's putting our services in compliance and minimizing our risk for exposure.
The most valuable feature is that we are able to scan the services and put credentials like a user ID password. We can verify the vulnerability level.
It combines both web application vulnerability management and internal vulnerability management on one platform and dashboard. Usually, you have to purchase separate tools.
We can do scanning and submit reports straight to the customers when there are new vulnerabilities, then tell them whether they are affected or not.
Key features include: Cloud-based, so the installation is not so tedious. Easily deployed. Highly scalable. Comprehensive reporting.
You can integrate your Burp Suite results and create an integrated report. Also, the way it shows the results - threats and exploit details - makes remediation very easy.
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.
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.
The scanner reports a lot of false positives, which is something that needs to be improved.
The pricing does not seem to be competitive.
The solution needs to adjust its pricing. They should make it more affordable.
It should have better automatic reporting.
The area of false positives could be improved. There are quite a number of false positives as compared to other solutions. They could probably fine tune the algorithm to be able to reduce the number of false positives being detected.
In terms of the Policy Compliance model which they currently have, not all the platforms are being covered. If they could improve on the Policy Compliance model, since there are policies which are benchmarked against it, this will be helpful for us.
The GUI could be a little less complicated as it opens a lot of new windows for creating search lists, templates, reports, or for scanning purposes.
They should try to include business logic vulnerabilities in the scanner testing.
Pricing and Cost Advice
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.
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.
There are different options available with respect to licensing.
The product is expensive, at least initially, in comparison to other products in this category.
Licensing was based on the number of assets that you want to scan on your network. You can also do licensing on subscription. On subscription, it is easier and more flexible. You tell Qualys that you want to move from the 1000 to 2000 band or the 3000 or 5000 band, then they will give you the quotation for it. Once you pay for it, applying the licensing is quite easy and effective.
Pricing was reasonable and competitive. It was not too far above the other products.
Qualys has an IT-based licensing based on a yearly license, which is a good way of handling it. However, in some cases, when we do the PCI scanning, the host will not like the scanning and we lose the IT license. So, this could be improved.
It is best to be an institutional buyer and directly contact the sales team, as they can provide over-the-top discounts for bulk orders.
Try the free trial of the product to understand the basic working mechanisms.
Answers from the Community
out of 32 in Application Security Testing (AST)
Average Words per Review
out of 32 in Application Security Testing (AST)
Average Words per Review
Compared 64% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
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.
|Qualys Web Application Scanning (WAS) is a cloud service that provides automated crawling and testing of custom web applications to identify vulnerabilities including cross-site scripting (XSS) and SQL injection. The automated service enables regular testing that produces consistent results, reduces false positives, and easily scales to secure a large number of websites. Proactively scans websites for malware infections, sending alerts to website owners to help prevent black listing and brand reputation damage.|
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Learn more about Qualys Web Application Scanning
Information Not Available
|BskyB, Cartagena, ClearPoint Learning Systems, Connect Group, du, Fortrex Technologies, HBOR, HDI, Highlights for Children, The Lithuanian State Enterprise Centre of Registers, City of Miami Beach, Microsoft, MidlandHR, MSCI Inc., Northern Arizona University, Ofgem, Olympus Europa, PhoneFactor, RTL Nederland, ThousandEyes, VGZ Organisatie B.V.|
Software R&D Company44%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm4%
Financial Services Firm57%
Software R&D Company14%
Comms Service Provider14%
Software R&D Company39%
Financial Services Firm8%