Softwr

Cloud · head to head

Nitric vs OWASP ZAP

Nitric logo

Nitric

Cloud

Infrastructure, handled

From
Free
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

  • Each has a real cost: Nitric smaller community compared to Terraform or Pulumi; 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: Nitric covers Multi-language support, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Nitric and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.

Attributes where Nitric and OWASP ZAP differ
AttributeNitricOWASP ZAP
Pricing modelUnknownfree
PlatformsAWS, Azure, GCP, KubernetesDesktop, Cli, Api
CategoryCloudCybersecurity
FoundedUnknown2001

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 Nitric

  • Multi-language support
  • Common resource abstractions
  • Local development
  • Multi-cloud deployment
  • Infrastructure as code generation
  • Vendor lock-in avoidance

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.

Nitric

  • Building APIs with multi-cloud deployment capabilitynot OWASP ZAP
  • Creating microservices across different cloud providersnot OWASP ZAP
  • Developing serverless applications in Python or Gonot 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 Nitric
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Nitric
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Nitric
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Nitric

Where each one falls short

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

Nitric

  • Smaller community compared to Terraform or Pulumi
  • Limited third-party provider plugins compared to dedicated IAC tools
  • Documentation could be more comprehensive

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

Nitric

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the Nitric review.

OWASP ZAP

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

Which should you pick?

Choose Nitric if

  • You need multi-language support.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on AWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes.
  • You also want common resource abstractions.
Nitric 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 Nitric or OWASP ZAP better?
Neither clearly leads. Nitric 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, Nitric or OWASP ZAP?
Nitric starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
Does Nitric or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
Nitric runs on AWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
Can I use Nitric for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Nitric best used for?
Nitric is most often used for building apis with multi-cloud deployment capability, creating microservices across different cloud providers, developing serverless applications in python or go. Of those, building apis with multi-cloud deployment capability and creating microservices across different cloud providers are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
What can Nitric do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
Nitric covers Multi-language support, Common resource abstractions, Local development, Multi-cloud deployment. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Nitric: Is Nitric free?

Yes, Nitric is an open-source framework. Costs only apply when deploying to cloud providers like AWS, Azure, or GCP.

Source
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.

Nitric: Can I switch cloud providers?

Yes, Nitric lets you write code once and deploy to AWS, Azure, GCP, or Kubernetes without modification.

Source
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.

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 Nitric

More on OWASP ZAP

Keep looking

Other head to heads