Cybersecurity · head to head
Authelia vs OWASP ZAP
Authelia
Cybersecurity
Open-source authentication and two-factor portal for reverse proxies
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Authelia depends on a reverse proxy: it is not a standalone identity provider; OWASP ZAP authenticated scanning of modern single-page applications is the hard part and ZAP makes you build it by hand: session handling, token refresh and login scripts are configured per application, and a misconfigured session means the scanner logs itself out and reports a clean result for pages it never reached.
- They diverge on capability: Authelia covers Reverse proxy integration, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Authelia and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Cybersecurity).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in Authelia
- Reverse proxy integration
- Two-factor authentication
- Access control rules
- Lightweight backends
Only in OWASP ZAP
- Intercepting proxy
- Passive scanner
- Active scanner
- AJAX spider
- Automation Framework
- Headless daemon and REST API
- Docker images
- Add-on marketplace
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Authelia
- Putting a login and 2FA in front of self-hosted services that have nonenot OWASP ZAP
- Adding SSO across a small set of internal tools without a full identity platformnot OWASP ZAP
- Home and small-team infrastructure behind a single reverse proxynot OWASP ZAP
OWASP ZAP
- Adding a baseline security scan to every application's pipeline where per-target commercial licensing would limit coverage to a handfulnot Authelia
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Authelia
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Authelia
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Authelia
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Authelia
- Depends on a reverse proxy: it is not a standalone identity provider
- Configuration is YAML-first with no administrative interface, so changes mean editing files
- Not a full IAM: user management, provisioning and federation are limited compared with Keycloak
- Scales poorly as an organisation-wide identity solution, which is not its target
OWASP ZAP
- Authenticated scanning of modern single-page applications is the hard part and ZAP makes you build it by hand: session handling, token refresh and login scripts are configured per application, and a misconfigured session means the scanner logs itself out and reports a clean result for pages it never reached.
- There is no support contract in the product, so when a scan breaks the day before a release the escalation path is a GitHub issue and a community chat, which is not an answer that satisfies a delivery manager or an auditor who wants a named responsible party.
- Active scanning sends genuine attack traffic, so it can create records, trigger emails, exhaust rate limits or destabilise a fragile environment, and pointing it at production without prior agreement produces an incident rather than a test result.
- Output needs triage: passive rules generate large volumes of low-severity informational findings about headers and cookie flags that bury the few results that matter, and a team without someone tuning the rule set stops reading the report within a few sprints.
- As a dynamic scanner it can only test what it can reach, so authorisation flaws between accounts, business logic abuse and anything behind an undiscovered endpoint go unreported, and a passing ZAP scan is evidence of nothing more than the absence of the classes of bug it looks for.
Pricing, plan by plan
Authelia
Free- AutheliaFree
- Full functionality
- No usage limits
- Community support
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Authelia if
- You need reverse proxy integration.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted.
- You also want two-factor authentication.
Choose OWASP ZAP if
- You need intercepting proxy.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- You also want passive scanner.
Questions people ask
- Is Authelia or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Authelia starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Authelia or OWASP ZAP?
- Authelia starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Authelia or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Authelia runs on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Authelia for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Authelia best used for?
- Authelia is most often used for putting a login and 2fa in front of self-hosted services that have none, adding sso across a small set of internal tools without a full identity platform, home and small-team infrastructure behind a single reverse proxy. Of those, putting a login and 2fa in front of self-hosted services that have none and adding sso across a small set of internal tools without a full identity platform are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Authelia do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Authelia covers Reverse proxy integration, Two-factor authentication, Access control rules, Lightweight backends. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Authelia: Is Authelia free?
Yes, open source with no licence fee.
OWASP ZAP: Is it still called OWASP ZAP?
The project left OWASP in August 2024 and is now governed by the Software Security Project, with core development sponsored by Checkmarx. The tool is now just ZAP, though most existing documentation, courses and search results still use the OWASP name.
Authelia: Does Authelia need a reverse proxy?
Yes. It integrates through forward authentication with Nginx, Traefik, Caddy or HAProxy rather than sitting in front of traffic itself.
OWASP ZAP: Is it free for commercial use?
Yes. It is Apache 2.0 licensed, with no per-application, per-scan or per-user cost, and it can be used and modified commercially without a licence agreement.
Authelia: Authelia or Keycloak?
Authelia is far lighter and aimed at protecting self-hosted services behind a proxy. Keycloak is a full identity and access management platform, and much more to run.
OWASP ZAP: Can it replace a penetration test?
No. It automates checks for known vulnerability classes against endpoints it can reach. It does not reason about business logic, chain findings into an attack, or test authorisation between accounts, which is most of what a tester actually does.
OWASP ZAP: Does it run in CI?
Yes, through the official Docker images and the Automation Framework, which defines scan jobs in YAML so configuration lives in the repository. A baseline passive scan is the usual starting point because it is fast and non-intrusive.
OWASP ZAP: How does it compare to Burp Suite?
Burp Suite Professional is the more polished manual testing tool and has a stronger scanner and extension ecosystem, but it is licensed per tester and Burp Suite Enterprise per target. ZAP is the better fit where cost per target is the binding constraint; many teams use both.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Authelia vs authentik
- Authelia vs Logto
- Authelia vs Ory Kratos
- Authelia vs Frontegg
- Authelia vs Infisical
- Authelia vs Bitwarden
- Authelia vs Semgrep
- Authelia vs Trivy
- Authelia vs Chainguard
- Authelia vs Passbolt
- Authelia vs 1Password
- Authelia vs Signicat
- Authelia vs Silent Eight
- Authelia vs Socket
- Authelia vs Socure
- Authelia vs SonicWall
- Authelia vs Sophos Intercept X
- Authelia vs Ory
- Authelia vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Authelia vs Norton 360
- Authelia vs LastPass
- Authelia vs Burp Suite
- Authelia vs Metasploit
- Authelia vs Wireshark
- Authelia vs Feedzai
- Authelia vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Authelia vs JumpCloud
- Authelia vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- OWASP ZAP vs Logto
- OWASP ZAP vs Ory Kratos
- OWASP ZAP vs Frontegg
- OWASP ZAP vs Infisical
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Semgrep
- OWASP ZAP vs Trivy
- OWASP ZAP vs Chainguard
- OWASP ZAP vs Passbolt
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Signicat
- OWASP ZAP vs Silent Eight
- OWASP ZAP vs Socket
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs SonicWall
- OWASP ZAP vs Sophos Intercept X
- OWASP ZAP vs Ory
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs Feedzai
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Boundary
- OWASP ZAP vs JumpCloud
- OWASP ZAP vs McAfee Total Protection