Developer Tools · head to head
Cody vs OWASP ZAP
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Cody sourcegraph now publishes a single Enterprise plan starting at $16K, with no free or individual Pro tier listed on the pricing page; 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.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Cody 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 Cody
Nothing recorded that OWASP ZAP does not also cover.
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.
Cody
- Code completion and intelligent autocomplete in IDEsnot OWASP ZAP
- Developer chat with codebase context awarenessnot OWASP ZAP
- Automated debugging and error identificationnot OWASP ZAP
- Customizable prompts for workflow automationnot 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 Cody
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Cody
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Cody
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Cody
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Cody
- Sourcegraph now publishes a single Enterprise plan starting at $16K, with no free or individual Pro tier listed on the pricing page
- sourcegraph.com/cody redirects to the documentation rather than a Cody product or pricing page
- AI features are metered as credits included per user, and exceeding the allocation requires buying a higher volume bucket
- Volume credit buckets are sold as an add-on rather than included
- A customer success manager and premium support are optional paid extras on top of the Enterprise plan
- Standard support is 24x5 rather than 24x7, with round-the-clock coverage sold as an upgrade
- The published $16K figure is a starting price that scales with team size, so the actual cost is quoted rather than listed
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
Cody
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Cody review.
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
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 Cody or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Cody 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, Cody or OWASP ZAP?
- Cody starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Cody or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Cody runs on Web. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Cody for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Cody best used for?
- Cody is most often used for code completion and intelligent autocomplete in ides, developer chat with codebase context awareness, automated debugging and error identification, customizable prompts for workflow automation. Of those, code completion and intelligent autocomplete in ides and developer chat with codebase context awareness are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Cody do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Cody: Is Cody free?
Cody offers a free tier for individual developers via VS Code, JetBrains, Visual Studio, and the web app. Unlimited free usage is available for solo developers.
SourceOWASP 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.
Cody: What does Cody Enterprise cost?
Cody Enterprise pricing is custom and requires contacting Sourcegraph sales. It is available for Sourcegraph Enterprise customers and must be quoted based on your deployment and usage needs.
SourceOWASP 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.
Cody: What LLMs does Cody use?
Cody uses the latest large language models for code completions, chat, and debugging. It leverages Sourcegraph's advanced Search API to pull codebase context from local and remote repositories.
SourceOWASP 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
- Cody vs Turborepo
- Cody vs Visual Studio Code
- Cody vs ESLint
- Cody vs pnpm
- Cody vs Sourcegraph
- Cody vs Sweep
- Cody vs Deep Code
- Cody vs GitHub Copilot
- Cody vs Bazel
- Cody vs Fig
- Cody vs GoLand
- Cody vs Steampipe
- Cody vs Tilt
- Cody vs WarpBuild
- Cody vs Webpack
- Cody vs Avo
- Cody vs Azure DevOps
- Cody vs PhpStorm
- Cody vs 1Password
- Cody vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Cody vs Norton 360
- Cody vs LastPass
- Cody vs Bitwarden
- Cody vs Burp Suite
- Cody vs Metasploit
- Cody vs Wireshark
- Cody vs authentik
- Cody vs Authelia
- Cody vs Infisical
- Cody vs Trivy
- Cody vs Feedzai
- Cody vs Frontegg
- Cody vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Cody vs JumpCloud
- Cody vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Turborepo
- OWASP ZAP vs Visual Studio Code
- OWASP ZAP vs ESLint
- OWASP ZAP vs pnpm
- OWASP ZAP vs Sourcegraph
- OWASP ZAP vs Sweep
- OWASP ZAP vs Deep Code
- OWASP ZAP vs GitHub Copilot
- OWASP ZAP vs Bazel
- OWASP ZAP vs Fig
- OWASP ZAP vs GoLand
- OWASP ZAP vs Steampipe
- OWASP ZAP vs Tilt
- OWASP ZAP vs WarpBuild
- OWASP ZAP vs Webpack
- OWASP ZAP vs Avo
- OWASP ZAP vs Azure DevOps
- OWASP ZAP vs PhpStorm
- 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