Cybersecurity · head to head
Baffle vs OWASP ZAP
Baffle
Cybersecurity
Transparent proxy that encrypts, tokenises and masks database fields without application code changes
- From
- On request
- 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
- Only OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
- Each has a real cost: Baffle the proxy sits in the production data path, so it becomes a latency contributor and a failure domain, and any deployment needs load and failover testing that customers routinely underestimate.; 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: Baffle covers Transparent proxy deployment, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Baffle and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
Identical on both: 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 Baffle
- Transparent proxy deployment
- Field-level encryption
- Tokenisation
- Format-preserving de-identification
- Dynamic data masking
- Bring your own key
- Analytics and pipeline support
- AI pipeline protection
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.
Baffle
- A bank with a legacy application it cannot safely refactor that has an audit finding requiring field-level encryption of account datanot OWASP ZAP
- A company wanting to take a reporting database out of PCI scope by tokenising card fields before they landnot OWASP ZAP
- A healthcare organisation that must ensure database administrators and cloud operators cannot read patient identifiers in the tables they administernot OWASP ZAP
- A team moving regulated data into a warehouse or an AI retrieval pipeline that needs identifiers de-identified in transit without rewriting the ingest jobsnot 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 Baffle
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Baffle
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Baffle
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Baffle
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Baffle
- The proxy sits in the production data path, so it becomes a latency contributor and a failure domain, and any deployment needs load and failover testing that customers routinely underestimate.
- What you can still do in SQL depends on the protection mode chosen, and stronger modes restrict comparisons, joins and aggregations on protected columns, which can quietly break existing reports and analytics.
- Database and driver coverage is finite, so an organisation with an unusual engine, an old driver or heavy use of stored procedures may find its most important system is exactly the one not supported.
- Pricing is unpublished and scales with protected data stores, which means an enterprise trying to protect a long tail of small databases pays disproportionately compared with protecting a handful of large ones.
- Key management is your responsibility under bring your own key, and while that is the correct security posture, it moves a real operational burden and a genuine data-loss risk onto the customer.
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
Baffle
On request- Baffle Data Protection Services$undefined/year
- Quoted by protected data stores and deployment scale
- Self-managed and cloud marketplace deployment options
- Annual subscription
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Baffle if
- You need transparent proxy deployment.
- You work on Linux, Web.
- You also want field-level encryption.
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 Baffle or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Baffle starts at On request and OWASP ZAP at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Baffle or OWASP ZAP?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at On request for Baffle and Free for OWASP ZAP.
- Does Baffle or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Baffle runs on Linux, Web. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Baffle starts at On request.
- What is Baffle best used for?
- Baffle is most often used for a bank with a legacy application it cannot safely refactor that has an audit finding requiring field-level encryption of account data, a company wanting to take a reporting database out of pci scope by tokenising card fields before they land, a healthcare organisation that must ensure database administrators and cloud operators cannot read patient identifiers in the tables they administer, a team moving regulated data into a warehouse or an ai retrieval pipeline that needs identifiers de-identified in transit without rewriting the ingest jobs. Of those, a bank with a legacy application it cannot safely refactor that has an audit finding requiring field-level encryption of account data and a company wanting to take a reporting database out of pci scope by tokenising card fields before they land are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Baffle do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Baffle covers Transparent proxy deployment, Field-level encryption, Tokenisation, Format-preserving de-identification. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Baffle: Do applications need code changes?
No. That is the central design choice. Baffle intercepts traffic as a proxy rather than requiring an SDK call at every read and write.
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.
Baffle: Can you still query encrypted columns?
Partly, and it depends on the protection mode. Some modes preserve equality matching and format, stronger modes restrict what SQL operations remain possible, so this must be tested against your actual queries.
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.
Baffle: Does it take systems out of PCI scope?
Tokenisation can reduce scope by ensuring card data never lands in the protected system, but scope reduction is an assessor judgement, not a product setting.
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.
Baffle: Who holds the encryption keys?
You do, through your own key management service. Baffle supports bring your own key rather than holding customer keys itself.
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
- Baffle vs Very Good Security
- Baffle vs HashiCorp Vault
- Baffle vs 1Password
- Baffle vs LastPass
- Baffle vs Mullvad VPN
- Baffle vs Private Internet Access
- Baffle vs IVPN
- Baffle vs TunnelBear
- Baffle vs Enpass
- Baffle vs Passbolt
- Baffle vs Feedzai
- Baffle vs Genetec Security Center
- Baffle vs Tenable Nessus
- Baffle vs Transmit Security
- Baffle vs TrustArc
- Baffle vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Baffle vs VMware Carbon Black
- Baffle vs Wireshark
- Baffle vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Baffle vs Norton 360
- Baffle vs Bitwarden
- Baffle vs Burp Suite
- Baffle vs Metasploit
- Baffle vs authentik
- Baffle vs Authelia
- Baffle vs Infisical
- Baffle vs Trivy
- Baffle vs Frontegg
- Baffle vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Baffle vs JumpCloud
- Baffle vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Very Good Security
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Vault
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs Mullvad VPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Private Internet Access
- OWASP ZAP vs IVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs TunnelBear
- OWASP ZAP vs Enpass
- OWASP ZAP vs Passbolt
- OWASP ZAP vs Feedzai
- OWASP ZAP vs Genetec Security Center
- OWASP ZAP vs Tenable Nessus
- OWASP ZAP vs Transmit Security
- OWASP ZAP vs TrustArc
- OWASP ZAP vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- OWASP ZAP vs VMware Carbon Black
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- OWASP ZAP vs Authelia
- OWASP ZAP vs Infisical
- OWASP ZAP vs Trivy
- OWASP ZAP vs Frontegg
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Boundary
- OWASP ZAP vs JumpCloud
- OWASP ZAP vs McAfee Total Protection