OWASP Zap vs Synopsys API Security Testing comparison

OWASP and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OWASP is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.5, while Black Duck is ranked #37. OWASP holds a 5.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OWASP users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

OWASP Zap

Read 39 OWASP Zap reviews

11,947 Views
6,382 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Synopsys API Security Testing

Read 1 Synopsys API Security Testing review

228 Views
173 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Synopsys API Security Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Synopsys API Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,466 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

8th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Synopsys API Security Testing

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

37th

Average Rating

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OWASP Zap is 5.0%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Synopsys API Security Testing is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Read full review

UmarQureshi

Security Lead at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support

We are using Synopsys API Security Testing for scanning APIs for risks and vulnerabilities and to understand our posture before deployment within our business The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares. I have been…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

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

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"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."

"The solution is scalable."

"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

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

More OWASP Zap pros

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

Cons

"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."

"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."

"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."

"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."

"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."

"It needs more robust reporting tools."

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."

More OWASP Zap cons

"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

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

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

842,466 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

22%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Insurance Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

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, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 22% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Seeker vs Synopsys API Security Testing

Compared 39% of the time

Invicti vs Synopsys API Security Testing

Compared 36% of the time

More Synopsys API Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2025

Download Synopsys API Security Testing product report

Overview

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

AppSec testing optimized for the needs of API developers
APIs provide open, flexible interfaces that enable applications and services to talk to each other. But these characteristics can also make it difficult to build secure software—and even more difficult for traditional AppSec tools to test it.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,466 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.