Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

OWASP ZAP vs Proofpoint

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
Proofpoint logo

Proofpoint

Cybersecurity

Email security and data protection suite from a private company owned by Thoma Bravo, licensed per user with modules sold separately.

From
$6/month
Rated
-
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.; Proofpoint licensing is per user per year with each capability as a separate stock item, so the platform shown in a proof of concept is normally several products, and adding awareness training, data loss prevention or insider threat monitoring later is a fresh negotiation rather than enabling a feature.
  • They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Proofpoint covers Inline secure email gateway.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where OWASP ZAP and Proofpoint differ
AttributeOWASP ZAPProofpoint
Starting priceFree$6/month
Pricing modelfreesubscription
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsDesktop, Cli, ApiEmail, Cloud, Web
Founded20012002

Identical on both: 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 OWASP ZAP

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

Only in Proofpoint

  • Inline secure email gateway
  • Attachment sandboxing
  • URL rewriting and click-time analysis
  • Threat Response Auto-Pull
  • Email Fraud Defense
  • Security awareness training
  • Insider Threat Management
  • Enterprise DLP

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 Proofpoint
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Proofpoint
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Proofpoint
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Proofpoint

Proofpoint

  • A regulated organisation that needs a filtering layer, DMARC enforcement and archiving with an auditable trail across all threenot OWASP ZAP
  • An organisation that suffered a business email compromise and must show its board a control that stops delivery rather than remediating afterwardsnot OWASP ZAP
  • Concentrating stronger controls and training on the specific individuals who actually receive targeted attacks rather than applying uniform policynot OWASP ZAP
  • Retracting a phishing message from thousands of mailboxes after the verdict changes, including copies that were forwarded internallynot 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.

Proofpoint

  • Licensing is per user per year with each capability as a separate stock item, so the platform shown in a proof of concept is normally several products, and adding awareness training, data loss prevention or insider threat monitoring later is a fresh negotiation rather than enabling a feature.
  • It sits inline with MX records pointed at it, so any service degradation is a mail outage for the entire organisation, and both migrating on and migrating off are cutovers with queueing, rollback planning and a real risk of message loss.
  • Most customers on Microsoft 365 E5 or Google Workspace Enterprise are already paying for native filtering, so Proofpoint is a second licence layered over a capability the organisation owns, and that comparison is raised by finance at every single renewal.
  • The administration console carries a decade of acquisitions: the classic gateway policy routes and filters do not share a model with the newer module interfaces, rule evaluation is order-sensitive in ways that surprise untrained administrators, and mistakes there silently change what is delivered.
  • Quarantine management is a standing helpdesk workload because legitimate bulk mail, invoices and supplier notifications are held, and unless end-user digests are configured and users are taught to use them, the security team becomes the mail release desk.

Pricing, plan by plan

OWASP ZAP

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

Proofpoint

$6/month
  • Email Protection$6/month
    • Per user
    • Advanced threat detection
    • Data loss prevention
  • Compliance$8/month
    • All Email Protection
    • Archive & search
    • eDiscovery
  • Advanced Threat$10/month
    • All Compliance features
    • Targeted attack detection
    • Behavior analytics

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 Proofpoint if

  • You need inline secure email gateway.
  • You work on Email, Cloud, Web.
  • You also want attachment sandboxing.
Proofpoint review

Questions people ask

Is OWASP ZAP or Proofpoint better?
Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Proofpoint at $6/month, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Proofpoint?
OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and $6/month for Proofpoint.
Does OWASP ZAP or Proofpoint run on more platforms?
OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Proofpoint runs on Email, Cloud, Web.
Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Proofpoint starts at $6/month.
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 Proofpoint is typically brought in for.
What can OWASP ZAP do that Proofpoint cannot?
OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Proofpoint covers Inline secure email gateway, Attachment sandboxing, URL rewriting and click-time analysis, Threat Response Auto-Pull.

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.

Proofpoint: Does it replace Microsoft Defender for Office 365?

Functionally it overlaps heavily, and running both means paying twice for filtering. Most Proofpoint customers on Microsoft 365 keep Defender licensed because it is bundled in E5 and use Proofpoint as the inline gateway. Expect to justify that duplication annually.

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.

Proofpoint: Who owns Proofpoint?

Thoma Bravo, a private equity firm, which took the company private in 2021. It has continued to acquire since, including Tessian, Normalyze and Hornetsecurity, which is why the portfolio spans so many adjacent categories.

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.

Proofpoint: Do I have to change my MX records?

For the gateway, yes. That is what makes it inline and able to block before delivery. Some newer capabilities integrate through the mailbox API instead, but the core protection model is MX-level.

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.

Proofpoint: Is security awareness training included?

No, it is a separate subscription. It integrates well with the threat data, so training can target the users actually being attacked, but it is a distinct line item on the quote.

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.

Proofpoint: What does Threat Response Auto-Pull actually do?

It removes messages from mailboxes after delivery when the verdict changes, including copies that users forwarded internally. It is the answer to the case where a link was clean at delivery and weaponised an hour later.

Share

Related pages

More on OWASP ZAP

More on Proofpoint

Keep looking

Other head to heads