Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Resolver
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Resolver
Cybersecurity
Risk, incident and investigations platform for corporate security and operational risk teams, owned by Kroll
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
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.; Resolver kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Resolver covers Incident management.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Resolver actually diverge.
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 Resolver
- Incident management
- Investigations
- Enterprise risk management
- Internal audit
- Compliance and obligations
- Business continuity
- Risk Event Management
- Configurable dashboards
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 Resolver
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Resolver
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Resolver
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Resolver
Resolver
- A national retailer consolidating store incident reporting, loss prevention cases and investigations into one system with defensible evidence handlingnot OWASP ZAP
- A bank that needs operational risk events captured against a risk and control register rather than in spreadsheets and emailnot OWASP ZAP
- A university security operations centre running dispatch, case management and clery-style reporting from a single recordnot OWASP ZAP
- An organisation that already retains Kroll for investigations and wants case intake and vendor handoff in the same platformnot 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.
Resolver
- Kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation.
- Configuration flexibility comes at the cost of implementation time, with deployments commonly running several months and typically requiring vendor or partner services, so the first-year cost is well above the annual licence.
- Module-based pricing means the platform gets expensive quickly once you add audit, compliance and continuity to a security-led purchase, and modules bought later rarely carry the discount of the original deal.
- The IT and cyber compliance side is thinner than dedicated tools, so organisations chasing SOC 2 or ISO 27001 evidence automation will find it does not replace a Drata or Vanta.
- Reporting is capable but the drag and drop builder has a real learning curve, and organisations that do not train an internal administrator end up raising support tickets for changes that should be self-service.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Resolver
On request- Resolver Core$undefined/year
- Priced by modules selected and number of users
- Annual or multi-year enterprise agreement
- Implementation and configuration quoted separately
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 Resolver if
- You need incident management.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want investigations.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Resolver better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Resolver at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Resolver?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for Resolver.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Resolver run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Resolver runs on Web, iOS, Android.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Resolver 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 Resolver is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Resolver cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Resolver covers Incident management, Investigations, Enterprise risk management, Internal audit.
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.
Resolver: Who owns Resolver?
Kroll, which acquired it in 2022. It is marketed as a Kroll business and sold alongside Kroll risk and investigations services.
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.
Resolver: What does Resolver cost?
Pricing is not published. It is quoted by module and user count on an annual or multi-year enterprise agreement, with implementation charged separately.
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.
Resolver: Is Resolver a SOC 2 compliance tool?
No. It is a risk, incident and investigations platform. Automated evidence collection for security certifications is not its strength.
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.
Resolver: How long does implementation take?
Months rather than weeks for a multi-module deployment, and most customers use vendor or partner services to configure it.
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 LogicManager
- OWASP ZAP vs Diligent
- OWASP ZAP vs MetricStream
- OWASP ZAP vs NICE Actimize
- OWASP ZAP vs Omada Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs Sardine
- OWASP ZAP vs Silent Eight
- OWASP ZAP vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- OWASP ZAP vs OneTrust
- OWASP ZAP vs Rhombus Systems
- OWASP ZAP vs Trulioo
- OWASP ZAP vs ESET NOD32 Antivirus
- OWASP ZAP vs ExpressVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Falco
- OWASP ZAP vs Fenergo
- OWASP ZAP vs Google Authenticator
- OWASP ZAP vs Grype
- Resolver vs 1Password
- Resolver vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Resolver vs Norton 360
- Resolver vs LastPass
- Resolver vs Bitwarden
- Resolver vs Burp Suite
- Resolver vs Metasploit
- Resolver vs Wireshark
- Resolver vs authentik
- Resolver vs Authelia
- Resolver vs Infisical
- Resolver vs Trivy
- Resolver vs Feedzai
- Resolver vs Frontegg
- Resolver vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Resolver vs JumpCloud
- Resolver vs McAfee Total Protection
- Resolver vs LogicManager
- Resolver vs Diligent
- Resolver vs MetricStream
- Resolver vs NICE Actimize
- Resolver vs Omada Identity
- Resolver vs Sardine
- Resolver vs Silent Eight
- Resolver vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- Resolver vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Resolver vs OneTrust
- Resolver vs Rhombus Systems
- Resolver vs Trulioo
- Resolver vs ESET NOD32 Antivirus
- Resolver vs ExpressVPN
- Resolver vs Falco
- Resolver vs Fenergo
- Resolver vs Google Authenticator
- Resolver vs Grype