Cloud · head to head
Caddy vs OWASP ZAP
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: Caddy smaller ecosystem than Nginx, so third-party guides and modules are fewer; 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: Caddy covers Automatic HTTPS, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Caddy and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
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 Caddy
- Automatic HTTPS
- Caddyfile
- Reverse proxy
- Single binary
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.
Caddy
- Sites and services where expired certificates have caused outages beforenot OWASP ZAP
- Small deployments where Nginx configuration is more effort than the problem warrantsnot OWASP ZAP
- Reverse proxying internal services with TLS without a certificate workflownot 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 Caddy
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Caddy
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Caddy
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Caddy
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Caddy
- Smaller ecosystem than Nginx, so third-party guides and modules are fewer
- Adding plugins means rebuilding the binary rather than loading a module
- Under very high throughput Nginx generally still benchmarks ahead
- Automatic certificate issuance needs outbound internet access, which complicates air-gapped deployments
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
Caddy
Free- CaddyFree
- Full functionality
- Commercial use permitted
- Community support
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Caddy if
- You need automatic https.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker.
- You also want caddyfile.
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 Caddy or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Caddy 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, Caddy or OWASP ZAP?
- Caddy starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Caddy or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Caddy runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Caddy for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Caddy best used for?
- Caddy is most often used for sites and services where expired certificates have caused outages before, small deployments where nginx configuration is more effort than the problem warrants, reverse proxying internal services with tls without a certificate workflow. Of those, sites and services where expired certificates have caused outages before and small deployments where nginx configuration is more effort than the problem warrants are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Caddy do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Caddy covers Automatic HTTPS, Caddyfile, Reverse proxy, Single binary. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Caddy: Is Caddy free?
Yes, open source under the Apache 2.0 licence, free for commercial use.
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.
Caddy: What does automatic HTTPS mean?
Caddy obtains certificates from Let’s Encrypt or ZeroSSL on first request and renews them before expiry, with no cron job or configuration.
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.
Caddy: Caddy or Nginx?
Caddy is dramatically simpler to configure and removes certificate management. Nginx has the larger ecosystem and better peak throughput.
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
- Caddy vs HAProxy
- Caddy vs Packer
- Caddy vs Pulumi
- Caddy vs Portworx
- Caddy vs Podman
- Caddy vs Rancher
- Caddy vs Porter
- Caddy vs Flux
- Caddy vs Contabo
- Caddy vs Coolify
- Caddy vs Crossplane
- Caddy vs Dokku
- Caddy vs Encore
- Caddy vs Vagrant
- Caddy vs Buildah
- Caddy vs Kustomize
- Caddy vs Skopeo
- Caddy vs containerd
- Caddy vs 1Password
- Caddy vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Caddy vs Norton 360
- Caddy vs LastPass
- Caddy vs Bitwarden
- Caddy vs Burp Suite
- Caddy vs Metasploit
- Caddy vs Wireshark
- Caddy vs authentik
- Caddy vs Authelia
- Caddy vs Infisical
- Caddy vs Trivy
- Caddy vs Feedzai
- Caddy vs Frontegg
- Caddy vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Caddy vs JumpCloud
- Caddy vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs HAProxy
- OWASP ZAP vs Packer
- OWASP ZAP vs Pulumi
- OWASP ZAP vs Portworx
- OWASP ZAP vs Podman
- OWASP ZAP vs Rancher
- OWASP ZAP vs Porter
- OWASP ZAP vs Flux
- OWASP ZAP vs Contabo
- OWASP ZAP vs Coolify
- OWASP ZAP vs Crossplane
- OWASP ZAP vs Dokku
- OWASP ZAP vs Encore
- OWASP ZAP vs Vagrant
- OWASP ZAP vs Buildah
- OWASP ZAP vs Kustomize
- OWASP ZAP vs Skopeo
- OWASP ZAP vs containerd
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- OWASP ZAP vs Authelia
- 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