Cybersecurity · head to head
Grype vs OWASP ZAP
Grype
Cybersecurity
Vulnerability scanner for container images and filesystems
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
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: Grype depends on public vulnerability databases, so coverage and false positives vary by ecosystem; 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: Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Grype 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 Grype
- Image and filesystem scanning
- SBOM-driven
- Wide ecosystem coverage
- Pipeline friendly
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.
Grype
- Re-scanning stored SBOMs as new CVEs are published, without rebuilding imagesnot OWASP ZAP
- Failing CI when a build introduces a known vulnerabilitynot OWASP ZAP
- Auditing what is actually installed inside a third-party imagenot 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 Grype
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Grype
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Grype
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Grype
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Grype
- Depends on public vulnerability databases, so coverage and false positives vary by ecosystem
- No triage, exception tracking or reporting UI — that is Anchore’s commercial product
- Overlaps heavily with Trivy, and most teams pick one rather than running both
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
Grype
Free- GrypeFree
- Full functionality
- No usage limits
- Community support
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Grype if
- You need image and filesystem scanning.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker.
- You also want sbom-driven.
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 Grype or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Grype 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, Grype or OWASP ZAP?
- Grype starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Grype or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Grype runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Grype for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Grype best used for?
- Grype is most often used for re-scanning stored sboms as new cves are published, without rebuilding images, failing ci when a build introduces a known vulnerability, auditing what is actually installed inside a third-party image. Of those, re-scanning stored sboms as new cves are published, without rebuilding images and failing ci when a build introduces a known vulnerability are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Grype do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, SBOM-driven, Wide ecosystem coverage, Pipeline friendly. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Grype: Is Grype free?
Yes, open source from Anchore. Anchore Enterprise is the paid platform around it.
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.
Grype: What is the difference between Grype and Syft?
Syft generates the software bill of materials; Grype matches that inventory against vulnerability data. They are designed to be used together.
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.
Grype: Grype or Trivy?
They cover similar ground. Trivy is broader out of the box, including misconfiguration and secret scanning; Grype pairs more cleanly with an SBOM-first workflow.
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
- Grype vs Trivy
- Grype vs Snyk
- Grype vs Semgrep
- Grype vs Chainguard
- Grype vs HashiCorp Vault
- Grype vs Bitwarden
- Grype vs Infisical
- Grype vs Authelia
- Grype vs Ory Kratos
- Grype vs Cosign
- Grype vs authentik
- Grype vs Socket
- Grype vs Socure
- Grype vs SonicWall
- Grype vs Sophos Intercept X
- Grype vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- Grype vs Sticky Password
- Grype vs 1Password
- Grype vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Grype vs Norton 360
- Grype vs LastPass
- Grype vs Burp Suite
- Grype vs Metasploit
- Grype vs Wireshark
- Grype vs Feedzai
- Grype vs Frontegg
- Grype vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Grype vs JumpCloud
- Grype vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Trivy
- OWASP ZAP vs Snyk
- OWASP ZAP vs Semgrep
- OWASP ZAP vs Chainguard
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Vault
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Infisical
- OWASP ZAP vs Authelia
- OWASP ZAP vs Ory Kratos
- OWASP ZAP vs Cosign
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- OWASP ZAP vs Socket
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs SonicWall
- OWASP ZAP vs Sophos Intercept X
- OWASP ZAP vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Sticky Password
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs Feedzai
- OWASP ZAP vs Frontegg
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Boundary
- OWASP ZAP vs JumpCloud
- OWASP ZAP vs McAfee Total Protection