Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Avo vs OWASP ZAP

Avo logo

Avo

Developer Tools

Analytics governance: define a tracking plan, generate typed code from it, and catch drift before release

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
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
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Avo editor seats are the metered unit and only five are included on the Team plan, so a company where many squads define their own events pays 50 dollars per additional editor and the real cost quickly exceeds the headline 250.; 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: Avo covers Tracking plan, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Avo and OWASP ZAP differ
AttributeAvoOWASP ZAP
Pricing modelPer editor seat per monthfree
PlatformsWeb, iOS, Android, Web SDK, APIDesktop, Cli, Api
CategoryDeveloper ToolsCybersecurity
FoundedUnknown2001

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).

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 Avo

  • Tracking plan
  • Code generation
  • Inspector
  • Branching and approvals
  • Schema sync
  • Stakeholder access
  • Audit trail
  • Data design standards

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.

Avo

  • A product team whose iOS and Android event names have drifted apart, making cross-platform funnels meaninglessnot OWASP ZAP
  • An analytics lead who wants tracking changes to go through review rather than appearing in production unannouncednot OWASP ZAP
  • A company migrating between analytics tools that needs a canonical event schema independent of any vendornot OWASP ZAP
  • An engineering organisation that wants event tracking mistakes caught by the compiler rather than by an analyst three months laternot 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 Avo
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Avo
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Avo
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Avo

Where each one falls short

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

Avo

  • Editor seats are the metered unit and only five are included on the Team plan, so a company where many squads define their own events pays 50 dollars per additional editor and the real cost quickly exceeds the headline 250.
  • Avo governs event definitions but does not fix historic data, so an organisation with years of inconsistent tracking still faces the backfill problem it cannot solve.
  • Code generation requires engineering teams to adopt generated modules in their build, and in practice some platform teams resist, leaving parts of the estate ungoverned and the plan only partly enforced.
  • Inspector event volume is capped by tier, at 100,000 on free and one million on enterprise, so a high-traffic consumer product samples rather than observes everything and drift can hide in the unobserved portion.
  • It is an additional tool in an analytics stack that already costs money, and justifying it requires the organisation to accept that its existing data is unreliable, which is a political argument as much as a budgetary one.

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

Avo

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 2 editor seats
    • Unlimited comment seats
    • 100,000 events observed in Inspector
  • Team$250/month
    • 5 editor seats included
    • Additional editors at $50 per month annually
    • Approval workflows and branch audits
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Custom seats and event volume
    • 1,000,000 events observed in Inspector
    • Enforceable approval and design standards

OWASP ZAP

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

Which should you pick?

Choose Avo if

  • You need tracking plan.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android, Web SDK, API.
  • You also want code generation.
Avo 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 Avo or OWASP ZAP better?
Neither clearly leads. Avo 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, Avo or OWASP ZAP?
Avo starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
Does Avo or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
Avo runs on Web, iOS, Android, Web SDK, API. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
Can I use Avo for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Avo best used for?
Avo is most often used for a product team whose ios and android event names have drifted apart, making cross-platform funnels meaningless, an analytics lead who wants tracking changes to go through review rather than appearing in production unannounced, a company migrating between analytics tools that needs a canonical event schema independent of any vendor, an engineering organisation that wants event tracking mistakes caught by the compiler rather than by an analyst three months later. Of those, a product team whose ios and android event names have drifted apart, making cross-platform funnels meaningless and an analytics lead who wants tracking changes to go through review rather than appearing in production unannounced are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
What can Avo do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
Avo covers Tracking plan, Code generation, Inspector, Branching and approvals. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Avo: Is the free tier usable in production?

Yes. It includes two editors, code generation and 100,000 events observed in Inspector, which is enough for a small team.

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.

Avo: What exactly does code generation give me?

Type-safe tracking functions per platform, so a wrong event name or property type fails at compile time rather than in production data.

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.

Avo: Does Avo replace Amplitude or Mixpanel?

No. It governs the events those tools receive; you still need an analytics product.

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.

Avo: How much is the Team plan?

250 US dollars a month billed annually for five editors, or 300 billed monthly, with extra editors at 50 dollars.

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 Avo

More on OWASP ZAP

Keep looking

Other head to heads