Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

OWASP ZAP vs Periscope Holdings

OWASP ZAP logo

OWASP ZAP

Cybersecurity

Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite
Periscope Holdings logo

Periscope Holdings

Government

Statewide e-procurement systems and supplier networks for large public agencies

From
On request
Free plan
No
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: 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.; Periscope Holdings it is scaled and priced for statewide programmes, so a single city or county typically finds both the implementation effort and the cost out of proportion to its needs.
  • They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Periscope Holdings covers Sealed bid solicitation.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Periscope Holdings actually diverge.

Attributes where OWASP ZAP and Periscope Holdings differ
AttributeOWASP ZAPPeriscope Holdings
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelfreequote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsDesktop, Cli, ApiWeb
CategoryCybersecurityGovernment
Founded2001Unknown

Identical on both: 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 OWASP ZAP

  • Intercepting proxy
  • Passive scanner
  • Active scanner
  • AJAX spider
  • Automation Framework
  • Headless daemon and REST API
  • Docker images
  • Add-on marketplace

Only in Periscope Holdings

  • Sealed bid solicitation
  • Supplier registration network
  • Contract catalogues
  • Cooperative purchasing
  • Spend and compliance reporting
  • Supplier diversity tracking

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

OWASP ZAP

  • Adding a baseline security scan to every application's pipeline where per-target commercial licensing would limit coverage to a handfulnot Periscope Holdings
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Periscope Holdings
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Periscope Holdings
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Periscope Holdings

Periscope Holdings

  • A state building a central procurement portal serving many agencies and local entitiesnot OWASP ZAP
  • A large agency needing statutory sealed bidding with a public opening recordnot OWASP ZAP
  • A purchasing programme that must report spend and supplier diversity across entitiesnot OWASP ZAP
  • A state wanting local governments to buy from its awarded cooperative contractsnot OWASP ZAP

Where each one falls short

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

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.

Periscope Holdings

  • It is scaled and priced for statewide programmes, so a single city or county typically finds both the implementation effort and the cost out of proportion to its needs.
  • The interface reflects the age and regulatory weight of the platform, and suppliers routinely describe registration and bidding as harder than on newer portals, which can suppress bid response.
  • Ownership has changed twice since 2021, from independent to mdf commerce to KKR, so roadmap and support continuity should be written into the contract rather than assumed.
  • Sibling products inside mdf commerce cover adjacent procurement ground, which means an apparently competitive shortlist may contain two products with the same owner.
  • Statewide implementations are multi year projects with heavy configuration and change management, and the professional services cost commonly exceeds the software over the contract term.

Pricing, plan by plan

OWASP ZAP

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

Periscope Holdings

On request
  • BuySpeed$undefined/year
    • Quoted per programme, scaled to entities served and transaction volume
    • Multi year statewide contracts with implementation priced separately
    • Supplier side registration fees form part of the commercial model on some programmes

Which should you pick?

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

Choose Periscope Holdings if

  • You need sealed bid solicitation.
  • You also want supplier registration network.
Periscope Holdings review

Questions people ask

Is OWASP ZAP or Periscope Holdings better?
Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Periscope Holdings at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Periscope Holdings?
OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for Periscope Holdings.
Does OWASP ZAP or Periscope Holdings run on more platforms?
OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Periscope Holdings runs on Web.
Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Periscope Holdings starts at On request.
What is OWASP ZAP best used for?
OWASP ZAP is most often used for adding a baseline security scan to every application's pipeline where per-target commercial licensing would limit coverage to a handful, manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per tester, teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselves, pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial dast subscription. Of those, adding a baseline security scan to every application's pipeline where per-target commercial licensing would limit coverage to a handful and manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per tester are not what Periscope Holdings is typically brought in for.
What can OWASP ZAP do that Periscope Holdings cannot?
OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Periscope Holdings covers Sealed bid solicitation, Supplier registration network, Contract catalogues, Cooperative purchasing.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

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.

Periscope Holdings: Who owns Periscope Holdings?

mdf commerce acquired it in 2021, and mdf commerce was itself acquired by KKR in 2024.

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.

Periscope Holdings: Is it suitable for a single city?

Usually not. It is built and priced for statewide or very large agency programmes.

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.

Periscope Holdings: What is BuySpeed?

The e-procurement platform behind its statewide deployments, covering solicitation through catalogue ordering and reporting.

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.

Periscope Holdings: Can we see what a state paid?

Yes. State procurement awards are public records and typically disclose the full multi year contract value.

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 OWASP ZAP

More on Periscope Holdings

Keep looking

Other head to heads