Softwr

Browser Extensions · head to head

FireMonkey vs OWASP ZAP

FireMonkey logo

FireMonkey

Browser Extensions

User scripts and user styles in one Firefox extension

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
OWASP ZAP logo

OWASP ZAP

Cybersecurity

Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: FireMonkey firefox only, and requires a recent one: version 93 on desktop, 113 on Android.; 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: FireMonkey covers Scripts and styles together, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 15 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which FireMonkey and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.

Attributes where FireMonkey and OWASP ZAP differ
AttributeFireMonkeyOWASP ZAP
Pricing modelopen-sourcefree
PlatformsFirefoxDesktop, Cli, Api
CategoryBrowser ExtensionsCybersecurity
FoundedUnknown2001

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 FireMonkey

  • Scripts and styles together
  • Monaco editor with ESLint
  • Unlimited client-side storage
  • Global injection
  • Notifications and clipboard
  • Firefox for Android

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.

FireMonkey

  • Running user scripts and user styles without two separate extensionsnot OWASP ZAP
  • Restyling sites with CSS alongside scripted behaviour changesnot OWASP ZAP
  • Editing scripts in a full editor inside the browsernot OWASP ZAP
  • Injecting CSS globally across every sitenot OWASP ZAP
  • Managing a mixed library of scripts and styles from one dashboardnot 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 FireMonkey
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot FireMonkey
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot FireMonkey
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot FireMonkey

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

FireMonkey

  • Firefox only, and requires a recent one: version 93 on desktop, 113 on Android.
  • Not a drop-in replacement for Greasemonkey, Tampermonkey or Stylus. The project says so itself, so an existing library may need adjusting.
  • A much smaller user base than Tampermonkey or Violentmonkey, which means fewer people have hit the bug you are about to hit.
  • No Chrome, Edge or Safari build, so it cannot be the answer for anyone working across browsers.
  • Combining scripts and styles in one extension also combines the blast radius: one extension with permission to inject both into every 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.
  • 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

FireMonkey

Free
  • Open sourceFree
    • MPL-2.0 licensed
    • Unlimited scripts and styles
    • No account required

OWASP ZAP

Free
  • Free & Open SourceFree
    • Full functionality
    • Active & passive scanning
    • Spider

Which should you pick?

Choose FireMonkey if

  • You need scripts and styles together.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Firefox.
  • You also want monaco editor with eslint.
FireMonkey review

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.
OWASP ZAP review

Questions people ask

Is FireMonkey or OWASP ZAP better?
Neither clearly leads. FireMonkey 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, FireMonkey or OWASP ZAP?
FireMonkey starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
Does FireMonkey or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
FireMonkey runs on Firefox. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
Can I use FireMonkey for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is FireMonkey best used for?
FireMonkey is most often used for running user scripts and user styles without two separate extensions, restyling sites with css alongside scripted behaviour changes, editing scripts in a full editor inside the browser, injecting css globally across every site. Of those, running user scripts and user styles without two separate extensions and restyling sites with css alongside scripted behaviour changes are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
What can FireMonkey do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
FireMonkey covers Scripts and styles together, Monaco editor with ESLint, Unlimited client-side storage, Global injection. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

FireMonkey: What makes FireMonkey different from Violentmonkey?

It manages user styles as well as user scripts. The usual arrangement is a script manager plus a separate style manager such as Stylus; FireMonkey replaces both with one extension.

Source
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.

FireMonkey: Which browsers does FireMonkey support?

Firefox only. Desktop requires Firefox 93 or later and Android requires 113, with an API minimum of 102.

Source
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.

FireMonkey: Is FireMonkey open source?

Yes, under the MPL-2.0 licence.

Source
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.

FireMonkey: Will my existing Tampermonkey scripts work?

Not necessarily. The project states that while it shares functionality with Greasemonkey, Tampermonkey and Stylus, there are differences, so scripts and styles written for those may need adjusting.

Source
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.

FireMonkey: What editor does FireMonkey use?

Current versions use the Monaco editor with ESLint, the same editor component that powers VS Code.

Source
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.

Share

Related pages

More on FireMonkey

More on OWASP ZAP

Keep looking

Other head to heads