Cybersecurity · head to head
Authy vs OWASP ZAP
Authy
Cybersecurity
Twilio's free authenticator app with encrypted cloud backup, mobile only since the desktop clients were withdrawn in 2024.
- 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: Authy there is no export function for stored TOTP secrets, so moving to a different authenticator means disabling and re-enrolling two-factor authentication on every account individually, which is the reason most users stay rather than a reason anyone should choose it.; 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: Authy covers Encrypted cloud backup, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Authy and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (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 Authy
- Encrypted cloud backup
- Multi-device sync
- Standard TOTP
- Offline code generation
- App lock
- Multi-device toggle
- Token organisation
- Free with no account tier
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.
Authy
- An individual who wants two-factor authentication on personal accounts and needs it to survive losing or replacing a phonenot OWASP ZAP
- A small team sharing access to a service account where the same tokens must be available on more than one handsetnot OWASP ZAP
- Replacing SMS-based codes with TOTP for someone who would abandon two-factor entirely if recovery were difficultnot OWASP ZAP
- Consolidating tokens scattered across several apps onto one device list with recognisable names and iconsnot 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 Authy
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Authy
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Authy
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Authy
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Authy
- There is no export function for stored TOTP secrets, so moving to a different authenticator means disabling and re-enrolling two-factor authentication on every account individually, which is the reason most users stay rather than a reason anyone should choose it.
- The Windows, macOS and Linux desktop applications were discontinued in 2024 and stopped working, so any workflow that depended on copying codes on a computer now requires a phone in hand, and users who held tokens only on a desktop client had to restore from backup or re-enrol.
- The account is keyed to a phone number, so an attacker who takes over that number through a SIM swap can begin the device registration flow, and the only remaining control is the backup password that most users set once and cannot recall.
- In 2024 an unauthenticated Twilio endpoint allowed attackers to confirm which numbers from a supplied list were registered Authy accounts, exposing around 33 million phone numbers, which disclosed no codes but handed phishers a validated list of people known to use two-factor authentication.
- It is a free consumer application inside a company that has already retired the paid Authy developer API it once supported, so it carries no revenue of its own, and users should treat its continued existence as a business decision rather than a roadmap commitment.
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
Authy
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Authy review.
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Authy if
- You need encrypted cloud backup.
- You want to start without paying.
- You also want multi-device sync.
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 Authy or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Authy 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, Authy or OWASP ZAP?
- Authy starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Authy or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Authy runs on Web. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Authy for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Authy best used for?
- Authy is most often used for an individual who wants two-factor authentication on personal accounts and needs it to survive losing or replacing a phone, a small team sharing access to a service account where the same tokens must be available on more than one handset, replacing sms-based codes with totp for someone who would abandon two-factor entirely if recovery were difficult, consolidating tokens scattered across several apps onto one device list with recognisable names and icons. Of those, an individual who wants two-factor authentication on personal accounts and needs it to survive losing or replacing a phone and a small team sharing access to a service account where the same tokens must be available on more than one handset are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Authy do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Authy covers Encrypted cloud backup, Multi-device sync, Standard TOTP, Offline code generation. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Authy: Is Authy still supported?
The mobile apps for iOS and Android are still available and functional. The desktop applications were withdrawn in 2024 and the Authy developer API has been retired in favour of Twilio Verify, so the surrounding product has been shrinking.
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.
Authy: Can I export my tokens?
No. There is no export of the underlying secrets, by design. Migrating to another authenticator means going to each service, disabling two-factor authentication and setting it up again with the new app.
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.
Authy: What happened to the desktop app?
Twilio announced its discontinuation in March 2024 and the applications stopped working later that year. There is no replacement desktop client; the mobile apps are the product now.
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.
Authy: Is multi-device sync safe to leave on?
It is the feature most worth understanding. Leaving new device registration enabled means anyone who controls your phone number can attempt to add a device. The usual advice is to turn the multi-device setting off once your devices are registered and turn it on only when you need to add one.
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.
Authy: What if I lose my phone and forget the backup password?
The secrets are encrypted with that password and Twilio does not hold it, so they cannot be recovered. You would fall back to each individual service's account recovery process, which is exactly the situation the backup was meant to avoid.
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
- Authy vs LastPass
- Authy vs 1Password
- Authy vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Authy vs Norton 360
- Authy vs Google Authenticator
- Authy vs Cisco Duo
- Authy vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- Authy vs RoboForm
- Authy vs ExpressVPN
- Authy vs Authelia
- Authy vs Stytch
- Authy vs WorkOS
- Authy vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- Authy vs Sticky Password
- Authy vs Surfshark
- Authy vs Tanium
- Authy vs Teleport
- Authy vs Bitwarden
- Authy vs Burp Suite
- Authy vs Metasploit
- Authy vs Wireshark
- Authy vs authentik
- Authy vs Infisical
- Authy vs Trivy
- Authy vs Feedzai
- Authy vs Frontegg
- Authy vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Authy vs JumpCloud
- Authy vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs Google Authenticator
- OWASP ZAP vs Cisco Duo
- OWASP ZAP vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- OWASP ZAP vs RoboForm
- OWASP ZAP vs ExpressVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Authelia
- OWASP ZAP vs Stytch
- OWASP ZAP vs WorkOS
- OWASP ZAP vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Sticky Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Surfshark
- OWASP ZAP vs Tanium
- OWASP ZAP vs Teleport
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- OWASP ZAP vs Infisical
- OWASP ZAP vs Trivy
- OWASP ZAP vs Feedzai
- OWASP ZAP vs Frontegg
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Boundary
- OWASP ZAP vs JumpCloud
- OWASP ZAP vs McAfee Total Protection