Developer Tools · head to head
Fig vs OWASP ZAP
Fig
Developer Tools
IDE-style autocomplete for your existing terminal
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
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: Fig shut down on 1 September 2024. Amazon acquired Fig in August 2023 and folded it into Amazon Q Developer, which now carries the terminal autocomplete; 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 Fig 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 Fig
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.
Fig
No use cases recorded yet. See the Fig review.
OWASP ZAP
- Adding a baseline security scan to every application's pipeline where per-target commercial licensing would limit coverage to a handfulnot Fig
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Fig
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Fig
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Fig
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Fig
- Shut down on 1 September 2024. Amazon acquired Fig in August 2023 and folded it into Amazon Q Developer, which now carries the terminal autocomplete
- The standalone desktop app is no longer available or supported
- The completion specs remain open source on GitHub, but the product that consumed them is gone
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
Fig
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Fig 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 Fig or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Fig 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, Fig or OWASP ZAP?
- Fig starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Fig or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Fig runs on Web. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Fig for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What can Fig do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- 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
- Fig vs Visual Studio Code
- Fig vs ESLint
- Fig vs Turborepo
- Fig vs pnpm
- Fig vs Sweep
- Fig vs Cody
- Fig vs Warp
- Fig vs Keycloak
- Fig vs Rust
- Fig vs CodeSandbox
- Fig vs Vite
- Fig vs Daytona
- Fig vs Visual Studio
- Fig vs Xlinesoft
- Fig vs Ona (formerly Gitpod)
- Fig vs Sourcegraph
- Fig vs 1Password
- Fig vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Fig vs Norton 360
- Fig vs LastPass
- Fig vs Bitwarden
- Fig vs Burp Suite
- Fig vs Metasploit
- Fig vs Wireshark
- Fig vs authentik
- Fig vs Authelia
- Fig vs Infisical
- Fig vs Trivy
- Fig vs Feedzai
- Fig vs Frontegg
- Fig vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Fig vs JumpCloud
- Fig vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Visual Studio Code
- OWASP ZAP vs ESLint
- OWASP ZAP vs Turborepo
- OWASP ZAP vs pnpm
- OWASP ZAP vs Sweep
- OWASP ZAP vs Cody
- OWASP ZAP vs Warp
- OWASP ZAP vs Keycloak
- OWASP ZAP vs Rust
- OWASP ZAP vs CodeSandbox
- OWASP ZAP vs Vite
- OWASP ZAP vs Daytona
- OWASP ZAP vs Visual Studio
- OWASP ZAP vs Xlinesoft
- OWASP ZAP vs Ona (formerly Gitpod)
- OWASP ZAP vs Sourcegraph
- 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