Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Prettier
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: 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.; Prettier inflexible style rules that cannot be customized significantly, forcing teams to accept opinionated defaults
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Prettier actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (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 OWASP ZAP
- Intercepting proxy
- Passive scanner
- Active scanner
- AJAX spider
- Automation Framework
- Headless daemon and REST API
- Docker images
- Add-on marketplace
Only in Prettier
Nothing recorded that OWASP ZAP does not also cover.
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 Prettier
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Prettier
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Prettier
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Prettier
Prettier
- Automatically formatting TypeScript files to project style standardsnot OWASP ZAP
- Enforcing consistent HTML indentation across component filesnot OWASP ZAP
- Removing style-related comments from pull request reviewsnot OWASP ZAP
- Formatting GraphQL queries with consistent indentationnot 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.
Prettier
- Inflexible style rules that cannot be customized significantly, forcing teams to accept opinionated defaults
- Developers must format entire files rather than selective line ranges in some contexts
- Limited language support compared to some alternatives, though it covers major languages
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Prettier
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Prettier review.
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.
Choose Prettier if
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on CLI, Editor Plugins, Build Tools.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Prettier better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Prettier at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Prettier?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Prettier at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Prettier run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Prettier runs on CLI, Editor Plugins, Build Tools.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- 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 Prettier is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Prettier cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
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.
Prettier: Is Prettier free and open source?
Yes, Prettier is completely free and open source, available as an npm package with no licensing costs or subscriptions.
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.
Prettier: Can Prettier be integrated with ESLint?
Yes, Prettier integrates with ESLint by disabling ESLint formatting rules via eslint-config-prettier, allowing both tools to work together with Prettier handling formatting and ESLint handling code quality.
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.
Prettier: Does Prettier support configuration customization?
Prettier is intentionally opinionated with limited configuration options to enforce consistency. You can create a .prettierrc file for basic customization, but Prettier does not support extensive rule customization like ESLint.
SourceOWASP 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
- 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
- OWASP ZAP vs ESLint
- OWASP ZAP vs Yarn
- OWASP ZAP vs Earthly
- OWASP ZAP vs Claude Code
- OWASP ZAP vs Deep Code
- OWASP ZAP vs Fig
- OWASP ZAP vs Visual Studio Code
- OWASP ZAP vs pnpm
- OWASP ZAP vs Turborepo
- OWASP ZAP vs GitHub Copilot
- OWASP ZAP vs Penpot
- OWASP ZAP vs Keycloak
- OWASP ZAP vs WarpBuild
- OWASP ZAP vs Webpack
- OWASP ZAP vs Avo
- OWASP ZAP vs Azure DevOps
- OWASP ZAP vs Backstage
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitbucket
- Prettier vs 1Password
- Prettier vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Prettier vs Norton 360
- Prettier vs LastPass
- Prettier vs Bitwarden
- Prettier vs Burp Suite
- Prettier vs Metasploit
- Prettier vs Wireshark
- Prettier vs authentik
- Prettier vs Authelia
- Prettier vs Infisical
- Prettier vs Trivy
- Prettier vs Feedzai
- Prettier vs Frontegg
- Prettier vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Prettier vs JumpCloud
- Prettier vs McAfee Total Protection
- Prettier vs ESLint
- Prettier vs Yarn
- Prettier vs Earthly
- Prettier vs Claude Code
- Prettier vs Deep Code
- Prettier vs Fig
- Prettier vs Visual Studio Code
- Prettier vs pnpm
- Prettier vs Turborepo
- Prettier vs GitHub Copilot
- Prettier vs Penpot
- Prettier vs Keycloak
- Prettier vs WarpBuild
- Prettier vs Webpack
- Prettier vs Avo
- Prettier vs Azure DevOps
- Prettier vs Backstage
- Prettier vs Bitbucket