Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Ray
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: 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.; Ray windows support is beta and multi node Ray clusters are untested on Windows
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Ray covers Distributed computing.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Ray actually diverge.
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 OWASP ZAP
- Intercepting proxy
- Passive scanner
- Active scanner
- AJAX spider
- Automation Framework
- Headless daemon and REST API
- Docker images
- Add-on marketplace
Only in Ray
- Distributed computing
- Ray Train
- Ray Tune
- RLlib
- Ray Serve
- PyTorch
- TensorFlow
- Hugging Face
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 Ray
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Ray
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Ray
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Ray
Ray
- Distributed AI model training and servingnot OWASP ZAP
- Large-scale data processingnot OWASP ZAP
- Reinforcement learning workloadsnot OWASP ZAP
- ML inference servingnot 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.
Ray
- Windows support is beta and multi node Ray clusters are untested on Windows
- Windows lacks copy on write forking, which raises memory requirements, and Ray code assumes UNIX filenames
- Multi node clusters are untested on Apple Silicon Macs
- The Java API is experimental and community supported only, and requires matching Java and Python versions
- Python 3.13 support is beta
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Ray
Free- Open SourceFree
- Full Ray framework
- All libraries
- Community support
- Anyscale PlatformFree
- Managed infrastructure
- Enterprise support
- SLAs
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 Ray if
- You need distributed computing.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Mac, Windows.
- You also want ray train.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Ray better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Ray at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Ray?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Ray at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Ray run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Ray runs on Linux, Mac, Windows.
- 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 Ray is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Ray cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Ray covers Distributed computing, Ray Train, Ray Tune, RLlib.
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.
Ray: Is Ray free?
Yes. Ray is free and open source software with over 34,800 GitHub stars and 1,000+ contributors. Users can download and use the Ray framework at no cost.
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.
Ray: Is there a paid option for Ray?
Yes. Anyscale, the managed platform built by Ray's creators, offers paid tiers with enterprise features like governance and advanced tooling. Specific Anyscale pricing details are not listed on the Ray website.
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.
Ray: Can I try Ray with credits?
Yes. New users can try Ray with $100 credit on Anyscale's managed platform to explore the service.
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 Google Vertex AI
- OWASP ZAP vs AWS SageMaker
- OWASP ZAP vs Azure Machine Learning
- OWASP ZAP vs DataRobot
- OWASP ZAP vs Milvus
- OWASP ZAP vs Pinecone
- OWASP ZAP vs H2O.ai
- OWASP ZAP vs Dask
- OWASP ZAP vs Apache Spark MLlib
- OWASP ZAP vs Weaviate
- OWASP ZAP vs TensorFlow
- OWASP ZAP vs LangChain
- OWASP ZAP vs Dataiku
- OWASP ZAP vs KNIME
- OWASP ZAP vs Palantir Foundry
- OWASP ZAP vs Python
- Ray vs 1Password
- Ray vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Ray vs Norton 360
- Ray vs LastPass
- Ray vs Bitwarden
- Ray vs Burp Suite
- Ray vs Metasploit
- Ray vs Wireshark
- Ray vs authentik
- Ray vs Authelia
- Ray vs Infisical
- Ray vs Trivy
- Ray vs Feedzai
- Ray vs Frontegg
- Ray vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Ray vs JumpCloud
- Ray vs McAfee Total Protection
- Ray vs Google Vertex AI
- Ray vs AWS SageMaker
- Ray vs Azure Machine Learning
- Ray vs DataRobot
- Ray vs Milvus
- Ray vs Pinecone
- Ray vs H2O.ai
- Ray vs Dask
- Ray vs Apache Spark MLlib
- Ray vs Weaviate
- Ray vs TensorFlow
- Ray vs LangChain
- Ray vs Dataiku
- Ray vs KNIME
- Ray vs Palantir Foundry
- Ray vs Python