Cybersecurity · head to head
Ory vs OWASP ZAP
Ory
Cybersecurity
Open-source identity, authentication, and permissions infrastructure
- From
- Free
- 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
- Each has a real cost: Ory production and Growth plans are billed annually ($770/year and $9,350/year), which is a larger upfront commitment than monthly-only competitors.; 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: Ory covers Authentication APIs, OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Ory and OWASP ZAP actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), 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 Ory
- Authentication APIs
- Permissions engine
- Machine-to-machine tokens
- B2B organizations
- SAML SSO
- Multi-region deployments
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.
Ory
- Adding self-hosted or cloud identity to a new productnot OWASP ZAP
- Implementing fine-grained permission checksnot OWASP ZAP
- Supporting B2B organizations and multi-tenancynot OWASP ZAP
- Building machine-to-machine authentication for microservicesnot 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 Ory
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Ory
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Ory
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Ory
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Ory
- Production and Growth plans are billed annually ($770/year and $9,350/year), which is a larger upfront commitment than monthly-only competitors.
- SAML SSO and multi-region deployments are reserved for the custom-priced Enterprise tier.
- Usage-based pricing across aDAU, M2M tokens, and permission checks makes cost estimation more complex than flat per-MAU billing.
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
Ory
Free- DeveloperFree
- Community support
- No production environments
- Production$64/month
- $21 monthly credit included
- 1 production environment
- 3 staging environments
- Growth$779/month
- $255 monthly credit included
- 2 production environments
- B2B organizations (max 3)
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Which should you pick?
Choose Ory if
- You need authentication apis.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on web, api.
- You also want permissions engine.
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 Ory or OWASP ZAP better?
- Neither clearly leads. Ory 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, Ory or OWASP ZAP?
- Ory starts at Free and OWASP ZAP at Free.
- Does Ory or OWASP ZAP run on more platforms?
- Ory runs on web, api. OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api.
- Can I use Ory for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Ory best used for?
- Ory is most often used for adding self-hosted or cloud identity to a new product, implementing fine-grained permission checks, supporting b2b organizations and multi-tenancy, building machine-to-machine authentication for microservices. Of those, adding self-hosted or cloud identity to a new product and implementing fine-grained permission checks are not what OWASP ZAP is typically brought in for.
- What can Ory do that OWASP ZAP cannot?
- Ory covers Authentication APIs, Permissions engine, Machine-to-machine tokens, B2B organizations. OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Ory: What does Ory cost?
Ory has a free Developer tier, a Production plan at $770/year including a $21 monthly credit, a Growth plan at $9,350/year including a $255 monthly credit, and custom Enterprise pricing.
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.
Ory: How is usage metered?
Beyond the included credit, Ory charges per average daily active user (aDAU), per machine-to-machine token, and per permission check, with lower per-unit rates on the Growth plan.
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.
Ory: What payment methods are supported?
Ory accepts credit cards (Visa, MasterCard, Amex) and bank transfer, processed via Stripe.
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
- Ory vs Logto
- Ory vs authentik
- Ory vs Clerk
- Ory vs Authelia
- Ory vs 1Password
- Ory vs Infisical
- Ory vs Chainguard
- Ory vs Sigstore
- Ory vs Bitwarden
- Ory vs Semgrep
- Ory vs Trivy
- Ory vs Avast One
- Ory vs Cosign
- Ory vs CyberGhost VPN
- Ory vs Dahua Technology
- Ory vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Ory vs Norton 360
- Ory vs LastPass
- Ory vs Burp Suite
- Ory vs Metasploit
- Ory vs Wireshark
- Ory vs Feedzai
- Ory vs Frontegg
- Ory vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Ory vs JumpCloud
- Ory vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Logto
- OWASP ZAP vs authentik
- OWASP ZAP vs Clerk
- OWASP ZAP vs Authelia
- OWASP ZAP vs 1Password
- OWASP ZAP vs Infisical
- OWASP ZAP vs Chainguard
- OWASP ZAP vs Sigstore
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitwarden
- OWASP ZAP vs Semgrep
- OWASP ZAP vs Trivy
- OWASP ZAP vs Avast One
- OWASP ZAP vs Cosign
- OWASP ZAP vs CyberGhost VPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Dahua Technology
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender Total Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Norton 360
- OWASP ZAP vs LastPass
- OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite
- OWASP ZAP vs Metasploit
- OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
- OWASP ZAP vs Feedzai
- OWASP ZAP vs Frontegg
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Boundary
- OWASP ZAP vs JumpCloud
- OWASP ZAP vs McAfee Total Protection