Developer Tools · head to head
Keycloak vs OWASP ZAP
Keycloak
Developer Tools
Open-source identity and access management server.
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Keycloak requires self-hosted deployment and operational expertise to install, configure and maintain; 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.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Keycloak 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 Keycloak
Nothing recorded that OWASP ZAP does not also cover.
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.
Keycloak
- Organisations requiring self-hosted identity infrastructure for compliance or data residencynot OWASP ZAP
- Companies with existing LDAP/Active Directory systems needing federated authenticationnot OWASP ZAP
- Open-source projects and communities requiring free IAM without licensing costsnot OWASP ZAP
- Enterprises building custom identity workflows requiring fine-grained authorisationnot OWASP ZAP
- Teams with sufficient operational expertise to manage infrastructurenot 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 Keycloak
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Keycloak
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Keycloak
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Keycloak
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Keycloak
- Requires self-hosted deployment and operational expertise to install, configure and maintain
- No managed cloud option provided by Red Hat; organisations must operate infrastructure themselves or use third-party distributions
- Clustering and high-availability configurations require additional operational knowledge
- Community support only; commercial support requires third-party vendors or distributions
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
Keycloak
Free- Open-sourceFree
- Full platform functionality
- Self-hosted deployment
- Community support
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Keycloak if
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Self-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, API.
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 Keycloak or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Keycloak 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, Keycloak or OWASP ZAP?
- Keycloak starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Keycloak or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Keycloak runs on Self-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, API. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Keycloak for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Keycloak best used for?
- Keycloak is most often used for organisations requiring self-hosted identity infrastructure for compliance or data residency, companies with existing ldap/active directory systems needing federated authentication, open-source projects and communities requiring free iam without licensing costs, enterprises building custom identity workflows requiring fine-grained authorisation. Of those, organisations requiring self-hosted identity infrastructure for compliance or data residency and companies with existing ldap/active directory systems needing federated authentication are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Keycloak do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Keycloak: What protocols does Keycloak support?
Keycloak supports OpenID Connect, OAuth 2.0 and SAML 2.0 protocols for authentication and authorisation.
SourceOWASP 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.
Keycloak: Can Keycloak integrate with existing user directories?
Yes. Keycloak supports user federation with LDAP and Active Directory systems, allowing organisations to leverage existing user directories.
SourceOWASP 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.
Keycloak: Is Keycloak free?
Yes. Keycloak is fully open-source and free to deploy and use. No licensing fees are required.
SourceOWASP 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
- Keycloak vs Penpot
- Keycloak vs Soketi
- Keycloak vs Ansible
- Keycloak vs Atlantis
- Keycloak vs Vite
- Keycloak vs Depot
- Keycloak vs Pants Build
- Keycloak vs Buildkite
- Keycloak vs Coder
- Keycloak vs Jitsu
- Keycloak vs Bitbucket
- Keycloak vs Sweep
- Keycloak vs Azure DevOps
- Keycloak vs Backstage
- Keycloak vs Claude Code
- Keycloak vs Cloud Native Buildpacks
- Keycloak vs Cody
- Keycloak vs 1Password
- Keycloak vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Keycloak vs Norton 360
- Keycloak vs LastPass
- Keycloak vs Bitwarden
- Keycloak vs Burp Suite
- Keycloak vs Metasploit
- Keycloak vs Wireshark
- Keycloak vs authentik
- Keycloak vs Authelia
- Keycloak vs Infisical
- Keycloak vs Trivy
- Keycloak vs Feedzai
- Keycloak vs Frontegg
- Keycloak vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Keycloak vs JumpCloud
- Keycloak vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Penpot
- OWASP ZAP vs Soketi
- OWASP ZAP vs Ansible
- OWASP ZAP vs Atlantis
- OWASP ZAP vs Vite
- OWASP ZAP vs Depot
- OWASP ZAP vs Pants Build
- OWASP ZAP vs Buildkite
- OWASP ZAP vs Coder
- OWASP ZAP vs Jitsu
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitbucket
- OWASP ZAP vs Sweep
- OWASP ZAP vs Azure DevOps
- OWASP ZAP vs Backstage
- OWASP ZAP vs Claude Code
- OWASP ZAP vs Cloud Native Buildpacks
- OWASP ZAP vs Cody
- 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