Compare OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp

OWASP Zap is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews while PortSwigger Burp is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 11 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.8, while PortSwigger Burp is rated 8.2. 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, Decoder with plenty of plug-ins from community forums". OWASP Zap is most compared with Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner, HCL AppScan, Qualys Web Application Scanning, WebInspect and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, whereas PortSwigger Burp is most compared with WebInspect, HCL AppScan, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, w3af and Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner. See our OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Veracode Logo
64,844 views|34,710 comparisons
OWASP Zap Logo
27,542 views|19,757 comparisons
PortSwigger Burp Logo
20,073 views|16,948 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
426,772 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
Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution.The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries.Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence.Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process.We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle.

More Veracode Pros »

Simple to use, good user interface.Automatic updates and pull request analysis.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.

More OWASP Zap Pros »

The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner.The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price.The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately.The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure.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.BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding.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.Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them.

More PortSwigger Burp Pros »

Cons
One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive.I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan.Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apkIt needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects.One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications.Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.

More Veracode Cons »

Too many false positives; test reports could be improved.Deployment is somewhat complicated.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.

More OWASP Zap Cons »

There should be a heads up display like the one available in OWASP Zap.The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration.The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative.The solution doesn't offer very good scalability.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.The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors.The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution.I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory.

More PortSwigger Burp Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization.They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works.Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.

More Veracode 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.

More OWASP Zap Pricing and Cost Advice »

There are different licenses available that include a free version.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.There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable.The yearly cost is about $300.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.

More PortSwigger Burp Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
426,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Popular Comparisons
Compared 51% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Also Known As
Burp
Learn
Veracode
OWASP
PortSwigger
Overview

Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects.

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 Veracode
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Learn more about PortSwigger Burp
Sample Customers
State of Missouri, Rekner
Information Not Available
Maven Security Consulting, OWASP Italy, Penetration Testing Firm
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm34%
Insurance Company14%
Consumer Goods Company7%
Healthcare Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company43%
Comms Service Provider12%
Media Company6%
Insurance Company5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company45%
Comms Service Provider12%
Media Company8%
Government5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company39%
Media Company12%
Comms Service Provider11%
K 12 Educational Company Or School7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise53%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise72%
REVIEWERS
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise53%
REVIEWERS
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise60%
Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
426,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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

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.