Cybersecurity · head to head
Descope 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: Descope free tier capped at 7,500 MAU; Pro tier at 10,000 MAU, Growth tier at 25,000 MAU, forcing migration to Enterprise for larger organisations; 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 Descope and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
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 Descope
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.
Descope
- Organisations seeking rapid identity implementation without custom developmentnot OWASP ZAP
- Companies supporting multiple user types (consumers, partners, AI agents) in single platformnot OWASP ZAP
- Multi-tenant B2B2C SaaS applications requiring per-organisation identity policiesnot OWASP ZAP
- Teams building passwordless-first authentication experiencesnot OWASP ZAP
- Healthcare and regulated industries requiring HIPAA-compliant identity managementnot 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 Descope
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Descope
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Descope
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Descope
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Descope
- Free tier capped at 7,500 MAU; Pro tier at 10,000 MAU, Growth tier at 25,000 MAU, forcing migration to Enterprise for larger organisations
- HIPAA compliance only available in Growth tier ($799/mo) and above; not included in lower-priced plans
- No-code UI builder provides pre-built flows but still requires custom frontend development for fully-branded authentication experiences
- All paid tiers billed annually; no monthly billing option for commitment-free flexibility
- Bot protection features available only in Growth tier and above
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
Descope
Free- Free ForeverFree
- 7,500 monthly active users
- Basic authentication
- Community support
- Pro$249/month
- 10,000 monthly active users
- Custom domains
- CI/CD integration
- Growth$799/month
- 25,000 monthly active users
- Bot protection
- Fine-grained authorisation
- Enterprise$undefined/month
- Unlimited monthly active users
- Tiered discounts
- Premium support with dedicated CS engineer
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 Descope or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Descope 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, Descope or OWASP ZAP?
- Descope starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Descope or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Descope runs on Web, iOS, Android, API. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Descope for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Descope best used for?
- Descope is most often used for organisations seeking rapid identity implementation without custom development, companies supporting multiple user types (consumers, partners, ai agents) in single platform, multi-tenant b2b2c saas applications requiring per-organisation identity policies, teams building passwordless-first authentication experiences. Of those, organisations seeking rapid identity implementation without custom development and companies supporting multiple user types (consumers, partners, ai agents) in single platform are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Descope do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Descope: Can I build custom authentication flows without code?
Yes. Descope's drag-and-drop workflow interface allows you to construct and modify signup, login, MFA and SSO flows without code changes.
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.
Descope: Does Descope support AI agent authentication?
Yes. Descope supports building identity journeys for AI agents and MCP servers, including scoped OAuth tokens and delegation chains.
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.
Descope: Is Descope HIPAA compliant?
HIPAA compliance is available in Growth tier and above, starting at $799/month.
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
- Descope vs Transmit Security
- Descope vs 1Password
- Descope vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Descope vs Norton 360
- Descope vs LastPass
- Descope vs Cisco Duo
- Descope vs Akeyless
- Descope vs Endor Labs
- Descope vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- Descope vs Stytch
- Descope vs Clerk
- Descope vs Private Internet Access
- Descope vs Arnica
- Descope vs Authelia
- Descope vs Authy
- Descope vs Baffle
- Descope vs Beyond Identity
- Descope vs BeyondTrust
- Descope vs Bitwarden
- Descope vs Burp Suite
- Descope vs Metasploit
- Descope vs Wireshark
- Descope vs authentik
- Descope vs Infisical
- Descope vs Trivy
- Descope vs Feedzai
- Descope vs Frontegg
- Descope vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Descope vs JumpCloud
- Descope vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Transmit Security
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs Cisco Duo
- OWASP ZAP vs Akeyless
- OWASP ZAP vs Endor Labs
- OWASP ZAP vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- OWASP ZAP vs Stytch
- OWASP ZAP vs Clerk
- OWASP ZAP vs Private Internet Access
- OWASP ZAP vs Arnica
- OWASP ZAP vs Authelia
- OWASP ZAP vs Authy
- OWASP ZAP vs Baffle
- OWASP ZAP vs Beyond Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs BeyondTrust
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- 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