Government · head to head
eCode360 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
- Only OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
- Each has a real cost: eCode360 eCode360's own vendor site now redirects to ICC Code Solutions, stating eCode360 is now part of ICC Innovation, indicating General Code has been absorbed into ICC rather than operating as an independent vendor; 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: eCode360 covers Online Code Publishing, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which eCode360 and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
Identical on both: 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 eCode360
- Online Code Publishing
- Zoning Map Integration
- Advanced Search
- Code Comparison
- Mobile Responsive
- ArcGIS
- Zoning Software
- Document Systems
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.
eCode360
- Citizen Servicesnot OWASP ZAP
- Records Managementnot OWASP ZAP
- Public Safetynot OWASP ZAP
- Civic Engagementnot 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 eCode360
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot eCode360
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot eCode360
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot eCode360
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
eCode360
- eCode360's own vendor site now redirects to ICC Code Solutions, stating eCode360 is now part of ICC Innovation, indicating General Code has been absorbed into ICC rather than operating as an independent vendor
- ICC Code Solutions' own eCode360 page lists a Professional Subscription at $195 per year in USD for read access to the eCode library, separate from the municipal codification subscriptions sold to local governments
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
eCode360
$175/month- eCode360$175/month
- Online Codes
- Zoning Integration
- Mobile Access
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose eCode360 if
- You need online code publishing.
- You work on Web, Ios, Android.
- You also want zoning map integration.
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 eCode360 or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. eCode360 starts at $175/month and OWASP ZAP at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, eCode360 or OWASP ZAP?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at $175/month for eCode360 and Free for OWASP ZAP.
- Does eCode360 or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- eCode360 runs on Web, Ios, Android. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. eCode360 starts at $175/month.
- What is eCode360 best used for?
- eCode360 is most often used for citizen services, records management, public safety, civic engagement. Of those, citizen services and records management are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can eCode360 do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- eCode360 covers Online Code Publishing, Zoning Map Integration, Advanced Search, Code Comparison. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
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.
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.
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
- eCode360 vs Municode
- eCode360 vs Accela
- eCode360 vs CivicPlus
- eCode360 vs Granicus
- eCode360 vs DocuWare
- eCode360 vs American Legal Publishing
- eCode360 vs GovPilot
- eCode360 vs OpenCities
- eCode360 vs Bidnet Direct
- eCode360 vs Polco
- eCode360 vs Socrata
- eCode360 vs CKAN
- eCode360 vs Clariti
- eCode360 vs DataSF
- eCode360 vs Google Cloud for Government
- eCode360 vs Legistar
- eCode360 vs GovQA
- eCode360 vs 1Password
- eCode360 vs Bitdefender Total Security
- eCode360 vs Norton 360
- eCode360 vs LastPass
- eCode360 vs Bitwarden
- eCode360 vs Burp Suite
- eCode360 vs Metasploit
- eCode360 vs Wireshark
- eCode360 vs authentik
- eCode360 vs Authelia
- eCode360 vs Infisical
- eCode360 vs Trivy
- eCode360 vs Feedzai
- eCode360 vs Frontegg
- eCode360 vs HashiCorp Boundary
- eCode360 vs JumpCloud
- eCode360 vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Municode
- OWASP ZAP vs Accela
- OWASP ZAP vs CivicPlus
- OWASP ZAP vs Granicus
- OWASP ZAP vs DocuWare
- OWASP ZAP vs American Legal Publishing
- OWASP ZAP vs GovPilot
- OWASP ZAP vs OpenCities
- OWASP ZAP vs Bidnet Direct
- OWASP ZAP vs Polco
- OWASP ZAP vs Socrata
- OWASP ZAP vs CKAN
- OWASP ZAP vs Clariti
- OWASP ZAP vs DataSF
- OWASP ZAP vs Google Cloud for Government
- OWASP ZAP vs Legistar
- OWASP ZAP vs GovQA
- 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

