ImmuniWeb vs OWASP Zap comparison

"ImmuniWeb is stable."

"After the assessment, you clearly know which assets require penetration testing."

"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."

"The most valuable features are the SLA of Zero false-positives, less time of service development, validation of unlimited patched vulnerabilities, and several others."

"ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. The solution is highly stable. The solution is scalable. Editing Key Points for Review "Review about ImmuniWeb" What is our primary use case? We use the solution when we face challenges and urgent attention is needed for complex cases from our clients. To address this, we collaborate with the middleware, internal, and client teams to analyze and sort through intricate logs concerning our business cybersecurity program. How has it helped my organization? The solution helped us with one of our clients in the New York area contacted us about a data breach. In response, we swiftly organized a case meeting involving our client, internal, and email customer support teams. Together, we conducted an incident response, facilitating offline assistance for proper planning and risk management processes. We delved into the details of the data breach, identified how it occurred, and collaborated to rectify the issue. The client expressed satisfaction with the resolution process. What is most valuable? ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. It also focuses on consumer satisfaction and operates in English-speaking markets, primarily required by the UAE, the United States, Canada, and Australia, among other developed countries. For how long have I used the solution? We have been using this product for the past one and half years. What do I think about the stability of the solution? The solution is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. How are customer service and support? Support is generally excellent"

"The initial setup process is user-friendly."

"I like the fully automated continuous discovery run by ImmuniWeb in the background. We do not need to rerun the same tests or the same scanning against our resources. We need to supply our IP addresses, domain names, and significant resources with special domain names and URLs, and we need to do it only once. Then we always have an up-to-date picture. I also like the integration with our single sign-on system. We do not need to maintain a separate set of usernames or user accounts. We can plug this ImmuniWeb service into our authentication technology, enabling two-factor authentication. We have secure authentication right out of the box. The other important feature I like is the executive view. You can easily switch from a technical view to an executive view and have a helicopter view of the compliance status. We can see how much effort is required and our current status."

"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."

"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

"OWASP Zap is a good tool, one of my favorites for a long time, and I would recommend it."

"Simple and easy to learn and master."

"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."

"A great idea would be to make a mobile application for the ImmuniWeb portal so that all information would be available on the go and from a mobile phone as well. It would be much more convenient."

"The deployment process on the cloud is straightforward, while on-premise can be complex. Support is generally excellent, although there can be delays in ticket resolution."

"The product’s interface for the web applications could be similar to Android and iOS versions."

"It would be better if they had an automated tagging feature. The tagging functionality currently requires manual tagging, and that's probably the most needed feature from my standpoint. We also do not have enough tools, enough features, or options to display different resources in the way we need. There are basic grouping and some filtering features, but we still cannot fully separate some flavors of our resources. However, we may not be aware of the latest features."

"Its technical support could be better."

"ImmuniWeb sometimes shows previous scans instead of running tests."

"A great idea would be to support using Discovery on the internal network, allowing delivery of all the features of the current Discovery to internal network resources."

"Sometimes, we get some false positives."

"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."

"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."

"I use the product's free version. The tool costs around 229 dollars."

"The platform is expensive if a large development is involved. However, it is less expensive for scheduled-based testing, quarterly or in a year."

"It is pretty expensive."

"There should be the flexibility to change or add pricing, especially for pay-per-use cases."

"The values of ImmuniWeb are currently significantly below what is valued in the Chilean market for these services and solutions."

"It is pretty expensive."

"ImmuniWeb is relatively cheap. It's a competitive price compared to other products in the marketplace. It's worth the money we are paying for it."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"The tool is open-source."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"The tool is open source."

"The solution’s pricing is high."