Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Chainguard vs OWASP ZAP

Chainguard logo

Chainguard

Cybersecurity

Secure-by-default open source software with hardened container images and libraries

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: Chainguard containers Catalog at 19,000 USD/year expensive for teams under 10 people; 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: Chainguard covers Hardened container images, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Chainguard and OWASP ZAP differ
AttributeChainguardOWASP ZAP
Pricing modelLicensing by artifact type and team sizefree
PlatformsCloud, Container, VMDesktop, 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 Chainguard

  • Hardened container images
  • CVE remediation SLA
  • SLSA L2/L3 builds
  • Sigstore signatures
  • SBOM generation
  • Language libraries
  • VM images
  • Artifact scanning

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.

Chainguard

  • Deploying hardened container images with minimal attack surfacenot OWASP ZAP
  • Meeting supply chain security requirements for regulated industriesnot OWASP ZAP
  • Reducing CVE exposure with contractual remediation guaranteesnot OWASP ZAP
  • Building secure language packages with automatic backportsnot OWASP ZAP
  • Verifying artifact provenance with Sigstore signaturesnot 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 Chainguard
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Chainguard
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Chainguard
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Chainguard

Where each one falls short

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

Chainguard

  • Containers Catalog at 19,000 USD/year expensive for teams under 10 people
  • Per-image pricing for containers requires custom quotes with no transparency
  • Free tier limited to 5 container images for testing
  • Libraries pricing by ecosystem and developer count lacks transparent per-developer cost
  • VM image catalog pricing opacity makes cost estimation difficult

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

Chainguard

Free
  • Free TierFree
    • Five container images to test and deploy
  • Containers Per-Image$undefined/custom
    • Licensed by quantity and type
    • Base images, application images, AI/ML images, FIPS variants
    • Custom pricing per image
  • Containers Catalog$19000/year
    • For 10-person engineering teams
    • 2,000+ container images
    • Contractual CVE remediation SLAs
  • Libraries Licensing$undefined/custom
    • Licensed by ecosystem (Python, Java, JavaScript)
    • Licensed by developer count
    • Unlimited pulls with no metering

OWASP ZAP

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

Which should you pick?

Choose Chainguard if

  • You need hardened container images.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Cloud, Container, VM.
  • You also want cve remediation sla.
Chainguard 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 Chainguard or OWASP ZAP better?
Neither clearly leads. Chainguard 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, Chainguard or OWASP ZAP?
Chainguard starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
Does Chainguard or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
Chainguard runs on Cloud, Container, VM. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
Can I use Chainguard for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Chainguard best used for?
Chainguard is most often used for deploying hardened container images with minimal attack surface, meeting supply chain security requirements for regulated industries, reducing cve exposure with contractual remediation guarantees, building secure language packages with automatic backports. Of those, deploying hardened container images with minimal attack surface and meeting supply chain security requirements for regulated industries are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
What can Chainguard do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
Chainguard covers Hardened container images, CVE remediation SLA, SLSA L2/L3 builds, Sigstore signatures. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Chainguard: How much is the Chainguard Containers Catalog?

The Containers Catalog is 19,000 USD per year for 10-person engineering teams, providing access to 2,000+ hardened container images.

Source
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.

Chainguard: What SLAs does Chainguard offer?

Chainguard provides contractual CVE remediation SLAs: 7 days for critical vulnerabilities, 14 days for high/medium/low severity, all with priority support.

Source
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.

Chainguard: Can I try Chainguard before purchasing?

Yes. The free tier includes five container images for testing and deployment, allowing hands-on evaluation.

Source
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 Chainguard

More on OWASP ZAP

Keep looking

Other head to heads