We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Synopsys Defensics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."They offer free access to some other tools."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"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."
"There are too many false positives."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
Earn 20 points
OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 37 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while Synopsys Defensics is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys Defensics writes "Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Veracode, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Fortify on Demand, Invicti and Ixia BreakingPoint.
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.
