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."The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"We like using the static analysis and code refactoring, which are very valuable because of our requirements to meet safety critical levels and reliability."
"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."
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"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."
"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."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"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."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"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."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"I hope that in each new release they add new features relating to the addition of checkers, improving their analysis engines etc."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"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."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
Klocwork is ranked 12th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 20 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th 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.
