Side by side
OpenText Fortify DAST vs XBOW
Both stand on web application security scanners. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Paid LinuxWeb
Visit OpenText Fortify DAST 
Paid APIWeb
Choose XBOW for ongoing, authenticated testing of interactive web applications and APIs, especially when validated evidence and reviewable activity matter. Look elsewhere if you need a listed price or testing targets beyond web applications and their APIs.
Visit XBOWThe facts
| OpenText Fortify DAST | XBOW | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Not published | Not published |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Linux, Web | API, Web |
| Lowest paid plan | Not published | Free or on request |
| Plans published | None | 1 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | opentext.com | xbow.com |
| On web application security scanners | #25 of 29 | #21 of 29 |
OpenText Fortify DAST: what it does well
XBOW: what it does well
- Runs vulnerability testing continuously as applications change.
- Supports authenticated scanning of web applications and APIs.
- Provides reproducible attack traces and exploit evidence.
- Logs every agent action for review.
- Lists over 40 compliance frameworks.
What to know first
- Pricing is available only on request.
- Cloud deployment is the listed deployment model.
- Scope is limited to interactive web applications and their APIs.
Alternatives to OpenText Fortify DAST Alternatives to XBOW The whole list