Compare OWASP Zap vs. WebInspect

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
WebInspect Logo
7,022 views|4,973 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Use WebInspect? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. WebInspect and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,468 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 »

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 »

The accuracy of its scans is great.The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use.The most valuable feature is the static analysis.It is scalable and very easy to use.It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning.I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level.Technical support has been good.

More WebInspect 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 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 »

Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us.It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved.Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved.The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex.The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective.I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities.The initial setup was complex.

More WebInspect 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 »

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 »

Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient.The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand.

More WebInspect Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
431,468 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 1% of the time.
Compared 64% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Also Known As
Micro Focus WebInspect, Fortify WebInspect
Learn
Veracode
OWASP
Micro Focus
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.

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.

Most enterprises rely heavily on the Web to conduct their normal operations, whether providing services, a mechanism for retail sales, or a host of other functions. Yet, most still struggle with efficiently managing their application security risks. For one thing, they need solutions of scale that can be used to manage thousands of active sites and assessments while also tracking discovered vulnerabilities, retesting procedures, and more. They need to perform repeated security tests to address compliance with regulations, legislation, and internal security policies and also see how their risk posture has changed over time. The enterprises have to protect their data, brand, and bottom line from the harsh impacts of what successful vulnerability exploitation could bring. Micro Focus WebInspect Enterprise enables organizations to solve these security problems quickly, efficiently, and intelligently.
Offer
Learn more about Veracode
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Learn more about WebInspect
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, Rekner
Information Not Available
Aaron's
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
Aerospace/Defense Firm14%
Energy/Utilities Company14%
Manufacturing Company14%
Marketing Services Firm14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company45%
Comms Service Provider11%
Media Company9%
Government5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company52%
Comms Service Provider13%
Government9%
Media Company4%
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. WebInspect and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,468 professionals have used our research since 2012.
OWASP Zap is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews while WebInspect is ranked 12th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 7 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while WebInspect is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WebInspect writes "Great centralized dashboard but is a bit overpriced". OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner, Qualys Web Application Scanning, HCL AppScan and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, whereas WebInspect is most compared with HCL AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner and Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. See our OWASP Zap vs. WebInspect 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.