Cybersecurity · head to head
IDnow vs OWASP ZAP
IDnow
Cybersecurity
Identity verification and qualified electronic signature for regulated European markets
- From
- On request
- 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
- Only OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
- Each has a real cost: IDnow agent-led video identification costs several times an automated check and depends on agent availability, so peak-time queues push abandonment up at exactly the moment conversion matters.; 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: IDnow covers VideoIdent, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which IDnow and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
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 IDnow
- VideoIdent
- AutoIdent
- eSign
- eID and NFC
- Bank identification
- EU data processing
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.
IDnow
- A German bank opening regulated accounts where BaFin requires a recognised identification methodnot OWASP ZAP
- An insurer needing a qualified electronic signature that will survive challenge in a European courtnot OWASP ZAP
- A telecom operator meeting national SIM registration identity rules across several EU statesnot OWASP ZAP
- A lender wanting automated checks for low-risk applicants and video identification only for high-value casesnot 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 IDnow
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot IDnow
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot IDnow
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot IDnow
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
IDnow
- Agent-led video identification costs several times an automated check and depends on agent availability, so peak-time queues push abandonment up at exactly the moment conversion matters.
- Pricing is quoted with an annual volume commitment, so the accreditation advantage comes with a floor you pay whether or not you use it.
- The product is optimised for European regulatory regimes, so buyers verifying users in North America, Asia or Africa will find coverage and cost less competitive than global specialists.
- Qualified electronic signature is a separate licence from identity verification, which surprises buyers who assumed the accredited identity check made the signature capability included.
- Integration for the regulated flows is heavier than a simple SDK drop-in because the compliant journey, including consent and recording requirements, constrains the user experience you can build.
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
IDnow
On request- IDnow Platform$undefined/year
- Per-identification pricing that differs sharply between automated and agent-led methods
- Annual volume commitment typically required
- Qualified electronic signature licensed separately
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose IDnow if
- You need videoident.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android, API.
- You also want autoident.
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 IDnow or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. IDnow 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, IDnow or OWASP ZAP?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at On request for IDnow and Free for OWASP ZAP.
- Does IDnow or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- IDnow runs on Web, iOS, Android, API. 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. IDnow starts at On request.
- What is IDnow best used for?
- IDnow is most often used for a german bank opening regulated accounts where bafin requires a recognised identification method, an insurer needing a qualified electronic signature that will survive challenge in a european court, a telecom operator meeting national sim registration identity rules across several eu states, a lender wanting automated checks for low-risk applicants and video identification only for high-value cases. Of those, a german bank opening regulated accounts where bafin requires a recognised identification method and an insurer needing a qualified electronic signature that will survive challenge in a european court are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can IDnow do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- IDnow covers VideoIdent, AutoIdent, eSign, eID and NFC. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
IDnow: Why choose it over a cheaper automated vendor?
Because in some European regimes the cheaper vendor is not legally permitted for the transaction. This is an eligibility question, not a quality one.
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.
IDnow: Is the electronic signature included?
No. Qualified electronic signature under eIDAS is licensed separately from identity verification.
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.
IDnow: Where is the data processed?
In European data centres, which is a requirement rather than a preference for many of its regulated customers.
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
- IDnow vs iDenfy
- IDnow vs Veriff
- IDnow vs Yoti
- IDnow vs Signicat
- IDnow vs Jumio
- IDnow vs Trulioo
- IDnow vs Shufti Pro
- IDnow vs Sumsub
- IDnow vs Socure
- IDnow vs Fenergo
- IDnow vs Quantexa
- IDnow vs Salient CompleteView
- IDnow vs Osano
- IDnow vs Proton Mail
- IDnow vs Brave Browser
- IDnow vs March Networks
- IDnow vs 1Password
- IDnow vs Bitdefender Total Security
- IDnow vs Norton 360
- IDnow vs LastPass
- IDnow vs Bitwarden
- IDnow vs Burp Suite
- IDnow vs Metasploit
- IDnow vs Wireshark
- IDnow vs authentik
- IDnow vs Authelia
- IDnow vs Infisical
- IDnow vs Trivy
- IDnow vs Feedzai
- IDnow vs Frontegg
- IDnow vs HashiCorp Boundary
- IDnow vs JumpCloud
- IDnow vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs iDenfy
- OWASP ZAP vs Veriff
- OWASP ZAP vs Yoti
- OWASP ZAP vs Signicat
- OWASP ZAP vs Jumio
- OWASP ZAP vs Trulioo
- OWASP ZAP vs Shufti Pro
- OWASP ZAP vs Sumsub
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs Fenergo
- OWASP ZAP vs Quantexa
- OWASP ZAP vs Salient CompleteView
- OWASP ZAP vs Osano
- OWASP ZAP vs Proton Mail
- OWASP ZAP vs Brave Browser
- OWASP ZAP vs March Networks
- 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