We performed a comparison between Klocwork and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There's a feature in Klocwork called 'on-the-fly analysis', which helps developers to find and fix the defects at the time of development itself."
"The reporting helps us understand the trend of our results and whether we improve over time. We can see the history within Klocwork's server architecture and know that we're making things better. It creates a great story for our management. We can demonstrate value and how our software is developing over time."
"Klocwork's most valuable feature is the static code analysis feature. It detects the potential problem earlier to allow the developer to receive feedback quickly and then address it before it becomes a problem."
"The most valuable feature of Klocwork is finding defects while you're doing the coding. For example, if you have an IDE plug-in of Klocwork on Visual Studio or Eclipse, you can find the faults; similar to using spell check on Word, you can find out defects during the development phase, which means that you don't have to wait till the development is over to find the flaws and address the deficiencies. I also find language support in Klocwork good because it used to support only C, C++, C#, and Java, but now, it also supports Java scripts and Python."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"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."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"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."
"The API is exceptional."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Klocwork does have a problem with true positives. It only found 30% of true positives in the Juliet test case."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
"We bought Klocwork, but it was limited to one little program, but the program is now sort of failing. So, we have a license for usage on a program that is sort of failing, and we really can't use the license on anything else."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"I believe it should support more languages, such as Python and JavaScript."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"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 doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
Klocwork is ranked 11th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 20 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Klocwork is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, Checkmarx One and CodeSonar, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional. See our Klocwork vs. OWASP Zap report.
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.
