The solution is pretty scalable. It's easy to extend as needed. 

I use it personally. 

The scalability could be better. I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Our customers are medium-sized businesses.

The tool’s scalability is fine for the way we use it. It would be helpful if the tool had a scalable package to deploy and scale out when we had more websites to scan. The vendor must provide a SaaS solution. It could be like a private and externally hosted firewall that we could just subscribe to and run scans.

It's a scalable product but its' slow.

Two resources from our security team work on generating and implementing reports. However, many other developers use the product to fix vulnerabilities and penetrate or audit the whole source code for products. The owner of the product and the developers are involved in the correction and the long-term plan to cover or close the vulnerability.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

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. Five users who are IT security engineers in my company use the tool. I plan to increase the usage of the tool in the future.

It lacks scalability. It is only good up to a limit.

It is not very scalable.

I'm the only security engineer. Only I use it in my company. 

The solution is scalable. It can be run simultaneously for different targets. 

Currently, we have three of us who have been using the OWASP Zap proxy tool. There are times when we even propose this ZAP proxy tool to customers. Sometimes, we get requests from clients who want us to use a specific solution like Acunetix, BurpSuite. 

For the choice of which tool to use in the long run, the decision is driven by the customers. When customers ask us for a tool recommendation, we do a security tool comparison analysis, and make a recommendation that best suits them, explaining the pros and cons of each tools. i.e when you use a solution like OWASP Zap versus going on with a tool like Burp Suite or Acunetix. 

We have not explored the scalability of the system yet. We only have two users currently using it.

Presently seven people use this solution. It is scalable. 

Not at this point. Normally I just play with it on Windows but lately I've been using it on Kali.

No scalability issues. I found this to be a very flexible tool.

I would say that scalability doesn't apply to this particular application. 

We haven't had any scalability challenges. 

In terms of scalability, I only tried it on small applications, so I don't know, but it seems very quick. We have plans to increase usage and to also support APIs and not just the applications. All applications that will be exposed to the internet are scanned. The ones that are used internally, in the organization, are not scanned at this point in time.

The scalability is very good. 

The scalability of this product is very good.

No major problems in terms of the scalability of the software.

While the solution can scale to a certain extent, it cannot scale a lot. This is not one of the strengths of the product.

We only have one user that is engaged with the solution currently.

There were no scalability issues, ZAP is a very fully featured HTTP intercepting proxy with many types of attacks targeting a plethora of known vulnerabilities. The OWASP Top 10 receives good coverage with ZAP. The REST API scales as far as you have resources. ZAP also has a docker image.

The solution is not scalable. 

It is scalable, by creating new extensions and add-ons for the tool. But we faced a couple of challenges initially which were solved with the help of online documentation

Scalability has not been an issue, so far. There are four of us in the company that can log in to use it.

We have not scaled yet. Though, we should be able to scale.