Machine Learning · head to head
ClearML vs OWASP ZAP
ClearML
Machine Learning
Open-source MLOps platform for experiment tracking and orchestration
- 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: ClearML broad scope means more to learn and more to run than a focused tracking tool; 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: ClearML covers Experiment tracking, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which ClearML 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 ClearML
- Experiment tracking
- Remote execution
- Data versioning
- Pipelines
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.
ClearML
- Tracking experiments across a team so results are reproduciblenot OWASP ZAP
- Moving training from laptops to shared GPU hardware without repackagingnot OWASP ZAP
- Versioning datasets alongside the experiments that consumed themnot 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 ClearML
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot ClearML
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot ClearML
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot ClearML
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
ClearML
- Broad scope means more to learn and more to run than a focused tracking tool
- Self-hosting the server is real infrastructure — database, file storage and web server
- Documentation quality is uneven across the newer parts of the platform
- Smaller community than the most popular tracking tools, so fewer worked examples exist
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
ClearML
Free- Open sourceFree
- Experiment tracking
- Pipelines
- Self-hosted server
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose ClearML if
- You need experiment tracking.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
- You also want remote execution.
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 ClearML or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. ClearML 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, ClearML or OWASP ZAP?
- ClearML starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does ClearML or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- ClearML runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use ClearML for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is ClearML best used for?
- ClearML is most often used for tracking experiments across a team so results are reproducible, moving training from laptops to shared gpu hardware without repackaging, versioning datasets alongside the experiments that consumed them. Of those, tracking experiments across a team so results are reproducible and moving training from laptops to shared gpu hardware without repackaging are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can ClearML do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- ClearML covers Experiment tracking, Remote execution, Data versioning, Pipelines. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
ClearML: Is ClearML free?
The open-source version is free and self-hostable. Hosted and enterprise tiers are paid.
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.
ClearML: How much code does tracking require?
Very little — adding a couple of lines to an existing training script captures parameters, metrics and environment automatically.
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.
ClearML: Does ClearML replace MLflow?
It covers MLflow’s tracking and adds orchestration, remote execution and data versioning. Whether that breadth is an advantage or extra weight depends on whether you need the rest.
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
- ClearML vs MLflow
- ClearML vs Weights & Biases
- ClearML vs Comet ML
- ClearML vs Neptune.ai
- ClearML vs Dataiku
- ClearML vs Pachyderm
- ClearML vs Azure Machine Learning
- ClearML vs Domino Data Lab
- ClearML vs DVC
- ClearML vs AWS SageMaker
- ClearML vs Google Vertex AI
- ClearML vs DataRobot
- ClearML vs Pinecone
- ClearML vs Python
- ClearML vs PyTorch
- ClearML vs scikit-learn
- ClearML vs Apache Spark MLlib
- ClearML vs Weaviate
- ClearML vs 1Password
- ClearML vs Bitdefender Total Security
- ClearML vs Norton 360
- ClearML vs LastPass
- ClearML vs Bitwarden
- ClearML vs Burp Suite
- ClearML vs Metasploit
- ClearML vs Wireshark
- ClearML vs authentik
- ClearML vs Authelia
- ClearML vs Infisical
- ClearML vs Trivy
- ClearML vs Feedzai
- ClearML vs Frontegg
- ClearML vs HashiCorp Boundary
- ClearML vs JumpCloud
- ClearML vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs MLflow
- OWASP ZAP vs Weights & Biases
- OWASP ZAP vs Comet ML
- OWASP ZAP vs Neptune.ai
- OWASP ZAP vs Dataiku
- OWASP ZAP vs Pachyderm
- OWASP ZAP vs Azure Machine Learning
- OWASP ZAP vs Domino Data Lab
- OWASP ZAP vs DVC
- OWASP ZAP vs AWS SageMaker
- OWASP ZAP vs Google Vertex AI
- OWASP ZAP vs DataRobot
- OWASP ZAP vs Pinecone
- OWASP ZAP vs Python
- OWASP ZAP vs PyTorch
- OWASP ZAP vs scikit-learn
- OWASP ZAP vs Apache Spark MLlib
- OWASP ZAP vs Weaviate
- 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