Compare OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp

OWASP Zap is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 10 reviews while PortSwigger Burp is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 8.2, while PortSwigger Burp is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp writes "Great design, excellent features like Intruder , Repeater with plenty of plug-ins from community support ". OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner and HCL AppScan, whereas PortSwigger Burp is most compared with OWASP Zap, WebInspect and HCL AppScan. See our OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OWASP Zap Logo
21,445 views|16,515 comparisons
PortSwigger Burp Logo
18,122 views|15,143 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Vinod_Gupta
Nidhi Chamotra
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
The scalability of this product is very good.The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information.The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool.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.It can be used effectively for internal auditing.The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list.It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later.Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs.

Read more »

BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding.The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately.The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues.Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it.Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them.This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps.This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved."

Read more »

Cons
I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers.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.The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified.There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap.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.It needs more robust reporting tools.As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this.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.

Read more »

The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors.The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative.The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution.The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired.I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory.The scanner and crawler need to be improved.There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual.The Initial setup is a bit complex.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing.OWASP Zap is free to use.It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use.OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate.As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out.

Read more »

There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable.The yearly cost is about $300.Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition.Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year.The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees.This is a value for money product.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
372,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
21,445
Comparisons
16,515
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
387
Avg. Rating
8.2
Views
18,122
Comparisons
15,143
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
714
Avg. Rating
8.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 63% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 74% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Also Known As
Burp
Learn
OWASP
PortSwigger
Overview

Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) is a free, open-source penetration testing tool being maintained under the umbrella of the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). ZAP is designed specifically for testing web applications and is both flexible and extensible.

Burp Suite is an integrated platform for performing security testing of web applications. Its various tools work seamlessly together to support the entire testing process, from initial mapping and analysis of an application's attack surface, through to finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities.

Offer
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Learn more about PortSwigger Burp
Sample Customers
Information Not Available
Maven Security Consulting, OWASP Italy, Penetration Testing Firm
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company48%
Media Company8%
Comms Service Provider8%
Financial Services Firm7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company32%
Comms Service Provider11%
Media Company9%
Government8%
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
Sign Up with Email