Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

authentik vs OWASP ZAP

authentik logo

authentik

Cybersecurity

Open-source identity provider with flexible authentication flows

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
OWASP ZAP logo

OWASP ZAP

Cybersecurity

Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: authentik smaller project than Keycloak, with a correspondingly smaller community and fewer integration guides; 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: authentik covers Configurable flows, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which authentik and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.

Attributes where authentik and OWASP ZAP differ
AttributeauthentikOWASP ZAP
Pricing modelOpen-source core with a paid enterprise tierfree
PlatformsDocker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hostedDesktop, Cli, Api
FoundedUnknown2001

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 authentik

  • Configurable flows
  • Protocol support
  • Application proxy
  • Modern admin interface

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.

authentik

  • Self-hosted SSO across internal services without commercial identity pricingnot OWASP ZAP
  • Putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxynot OWASP ZAP
  • Teams who tried Keycloak and wanted something less heavynot 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 authentik
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot authentik
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot authentik
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot authentik

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

authentik

  • Smaller project than Keycloak, with a correspondingly smaller community and fewer integration guides
  • The flow model is flexible but conceptually unfamiliar, and simple setups can feel over-abstracted
  • Enterprise support and some governance features sit behind the paid tier
  • Self-hosted identity is still yours to secure, patch and keep available

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

authentik

Free
  • Open sourceFree
    • Full identity provider
    • All protocols
    • Community support

OWASP ZAP

Free
  • Free & Open SourceFree
    • Full functionality
    • Active & passive scanning
    • Spider

Which should you pick?

Choose authentik if

  • You need configurable flows.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted.
  • You also want protocol support.
authentik review

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.
OWASP ZAP review

Questions people ask

Is authentik or OWASP ZAP better?
Neither clearly leads. authentik 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, authentik or OWASP ZAP?
authentik starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
Does authentik or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
authentik runs on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
Can I use authentik for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is authentik best used for?
authentik is most often used for self-hosted sso across internal services without commercial identity pricing, putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxy, teams who tried keycloak and wanted something less heavy. Of those, self-hosted sso across internal services without commercial identity pricing and putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxy are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
What can authentik do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
authentik covers Configurable flows, Protocol support, Application proxy, Modern admin interface. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

authentik: Is authentik free?

The open-source edition is free and complete for most use. An enterprise tier adds support and additional features.

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.

authentik: authentik or Keycloak?

authentik is generally reported as easier to run and administer; Keycloak is more established with a larger community and Red Hat behind it.

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.

authentik: Can authentik protect apps with no login of their own?

Yes. Its application proxy places authentication in front of services that have no built-in authentication.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on authentik

More on OWASP ZAP

Keep looking

Other head to heads