Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

HID Global vs OWASP ZAP

HID Global logo

HID Global

Cybersecurity

Physical access control, credential issuance and workforce authentication hardware and software

From
On request
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

  • Only OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: HID Global sales run through integrators, so the price you get depends on which partner quotes it and there is no published list to negotiate against.; 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: HID Global covers Physical access readers, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which HID Global and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.

Attributes where HID Global and OWASP ZAP differ
AttributeHID GlobalOWASP ZAP
Starting priceOn requestFree
Pricing modelquotefree
Free tierNoYes
PlatformsWeb, Windows, iOS, AndroidDesktop, Cli, Api
FoundedUnknown2001

Identical on both: 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 HID Global

  • Physical access readers
  • Mobile access
  • Seos credential technology
  • Card issuance
  • Workforce authentication
  • Visitor management

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.

HID Global

  • An enterprise moving from plastic badges to phone-based credentials without replacing every reader in the estatenot OWASP ZAP
  • A government agency needing card issuance and PKI credentials under a national identity programmenot OWASP ZAP
  • A hospital consolidating access control, visitor screening and clinician authentication onto one credentialnot OWASP ZAP
  • An organisation retiring cloneable legacy proximity cards after a physical penetration test found them trivially copiednot 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 HID Global
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot HID Global
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot HID Global
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot HID Global

Where each one falls short

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

HID Global

  • Sales run through integrators, so the price you get depends on which partner quotes it and there is no published list to negotiate against.
  • Mobile credentials are charged per identity as an ongoing fee, which converts a one-off card cost into a recurring per-employee subscription that budgets rarely anticipate.
  • Large estates run mixed generations of readers, so a credential upgrade is a multi-year hardware programme and the software licence is a small fraction of the true cost.
  • Legacy credential technologies still widely deployed have documented cloning weaknesses, and HID commercial interest in selling the replacement does not remove your exposure in the interim.
  • The portfolio spans hardware, firmware and several acquired software products, so integration between HID own components is less consistent than the single-vendor pitch implies.

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

HID Global

On request
  • HID Access and Identity Products$undefined/year
    • Hardware, credentials and software quoted through channel partners
    • Credential costs charged per card or per mobile identity
    • Reader hardware and installation quoted separately

OWASP ZAP

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

Which should you pick?

Choose HID Global if

  • You need physical access readers.
  • You work on Web, Windows, iOS, Android.
  • You also want mobile access.
HID Global 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 HID Global or OWASP ZAP better?
Neither clearly leads. HID Global starts at On request and OWASP ZAP at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, HID Global or OWASP ZAP?
OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at On request for HID Global and Free for OWASP ZAP.
Does HID Global or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
HID Global runs on Web, Windows, 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. HID Global starts at On request.
What is HID Global best used for?
HID Global is most often used for an enterprise moving from plastic badges to phone-based credentials without replacing every reader in the estate, a government agency needing card issuance and pki credentials under a national identity programme, a hospital consolidating access control, visitor screening and clinician authentication onto one credential, an organisation retiring cloneable legacy proximity cards after a physical penetration test found them trivially copied. Of those, an enterprise moving from plastic badges to phone-based credentials without replacing every reader in the estate and a government agency needing card issuance and pki credentials under a national identity programme are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
What can HID Global do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
HID Global covers Physical access readers, Mobile access, Seos credential technology, Card issuance. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

HID Global: Do we have to replace readers to use mobile credentials?

Often yes, at least in part. Reader capability determines which credential technologies work, and that hardware cost dominates the business case.

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.

HID Global: Are mobile credentials cheaper than cards?

Not necessarily. Cards are a one-off cost per employee, mobile identities are typically a recurring charge, so the crossover depends on staff turnover.

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.

HID Global: Can we buy directly from HID?

Generally not for access control deployments. Products are sold and installed through channel partners, so partner selection is part of the buying decision.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on HID Global

More on OWASP ZAP

Keep looking

Other head to heads