Cloud · head to head
Jaeger vs OWASP ZAP
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: Jaeger tracing is only as good as the instrumentation, and partial instrumentation produces misleading gaps; 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: Jaeger covers Distributed trace search, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Jaeger 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 Jaeger
- Distributed trace search
- Dependency graph
- Adaptive sampling
- Pluggable storage
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.
Jaeger
- Finding which service in a request path causes the latencynot OWASP ZAP
- Understanding real service dependencies rather than the diagram on the wikinot OWASP ZAP
- Debugging failures that only appear under production traffic patternsnot 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 Jaeger
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Jaeger
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Jaeger
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Jaeger
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Jaeger
- Tracing is only as good as the instrumentation, and partial instrumentation produces misleading gaps
- Storage is the real operational cost: high-volume tracing on Elasticsearch or Cassandra is a cluster to run and pay for
- Traces alone, without correlated metrics and logs, leave you switching between tools during an incident
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
Jaeger
Free- JaegerFree
- Full functionality
- No usage limits
- Community support
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Jaeger if
- You need distributed trace search.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Kubernetes, Docker.
- You also want dependency graph.
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 Jaeger or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Jaeger 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, Jaeger or OWASP ZAP?
- Jaeger starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Jaeger or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Jaeger runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Docker. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Jaeger for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Jaeger best used for?
- Jaeger is most often used for finding which service in a request path causes the latency, understanding real service dependencies rather than the diagram on the wiki, debugging failures that only appear under production traffic patterns. Of those, finding which service in a request path causes the latency and understanding real service dependencies rather than the diagram on the wiki are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Jaeger do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Jaeger covers Distributed trace search, Dependency graph, Adaptive sampling, Pluggable storage. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Jaeger: Is Jaeger free?
Yes, open source and CNCF-graduated. Costs are the storage backend you run.
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.
Jaeger: Do I use Jaeger or OpenTelemetry?
Both, usually. Instrument with OpenTelemetry and use Jaeger to store and query the traces.
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.
Jaeger: Does Jaeger handle metrics and logs?
No. It is a tracing system. Metrics and logs need Prometheus, Loki or an equivalent.
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
- Jaeger vs Zipkin
- Jaeger vs Grafana Cloud
- Jaeger vs VictoriaMetrics
- Jaeger vs Fastly
- Jaeger vs HAProxy
- Jaeger vs Anyscale
- Jaeger vs Proxmox VE
- Jaeger vs Rancher
- Jaeger vs OpenEBS
- Jaeger vs DeepInfra
- Jaeger vs Go
- Jaeger vs Packer
- Jaeger vs Caddy
- Jaeger vs Cerebrium
- Jaeger vs K3s
- Jaeger vs 1Password
- Jaeger vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Jaeger vs Norton 360
- Jaeger vs LastPass
- Jaeger vs Bitwarden
- Jaeger vs Burp Suite
- Jaeger vs Metasploit
- Jaeger vs Wireshark
- Jaeger vs authentik
- Jaeger vs Authelia
- Jaeger vs Infisical
- Jaeger vs Trivy
- Jaeger vs Feedzai
- Jaeger vs Frontegg
- Jaeger vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Jaeger vs JumpCloud
- Jaeger vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Zipkin
- OWASP ZAP vs Grafana Cloud
- OWASP ZAP vs VictoriaMetrics
- OWASP ZAP vs Fastly
- OWASP ZAP vs HAProxy
- OWASP ZAP vs Anyscale
- OWASP ZAP vs Proxmox VE
- OWASP ZAP vs Rancher
- OWASP ZAP vs OpenEBS
- OWASP ZAP vs DeepInfra
- OWASP ZAP vs Go
- OWASP ZAP vs Packer
- OWASP ZAP vs Caddy
- OWASP ZAP vs Cerebrium
- OWASP ZAP vs K3s
- 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