Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Rook
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Rook
Cloud
Kubernetes operator that deploys and manages Ceph storage clusters
- 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.; Rook rook automates Ceph but does not abstract it, so an incident still demands Ceph expertise, and organisations without it end up hiring consultants at exactly the wrong moment.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Rook covers Ceph operator.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Rook 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 Rook
- Ceph operator
- Block, file and object
- Erasure coding
- CSI driver
- Automated upgrades
- Multi-cluster mirroring
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 Rook
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Rook
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Rook
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Rook
Rook
- An on-premises Kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and S3 storage without buying three productsnot OWASP ZAP
- A team that already runs Ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside Kubernetesnot OWASP ZAP
- A large cluster where three-way replication overhead is unaffordable and erasure coding is requirednot OWASP ZAP
- An organisation building a private cloud that cannot use managed cloud storage services for residency reasonsnot 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.
Rook
- Rook automates Ceph but does not abstract it, so an incident still demands Ceph expertise, and organisations without it end up hiring consultants at exactly the wrong moment.
- There is no vendor and no SLA; the realistic commercial support routes are IBM Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation or an independent Ceph consultancy, both of which change the cost picture entirely.
- Ceph is resource hungry, needing substantial memory and dedicated disks per OSD, so the hardware cost of a properly sized cluster is often underestimated.
- Recovery and rebalancing after a disk or node failure generates heavy background input and output that can degrade application performance for hours, which surprises teams sizing for steady state.
- Minimum viable clusters require several nodes with several disks each, so it is impractical at small scale and the entry hardware cost exceeds simpler alternatives.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Rook
Free- RookFree
- Apache 2.0 licensed, no licence fee
- Graduated CNCF project
- Community support via GitHub and Slack only
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 Rook if
- You need ceph operator.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Kubernetes.
- You also want block, file and object.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Rook better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Rook at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Rook?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Rook at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Rook run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Rook runs on Linux, Kubernetes.
- 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 Rook is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Rook cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Rook covers Ceph operator, Block, file and object, Erasure coding, CSI driver.
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.
Rook: Who supports it in production?
Nobody by default. IBM sells Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation, which is supported Rook and Ceph, and independent consultancies sell Ceph support. Decide this before deployment.
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.
Rook: Does it need Ceph knowledge?
Yes. Rook handles deployment and routine operations, but troubleshooting a degraded cluster is a Ceph skill and there is no way around it.
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.
Rook: Can it replace an object storage appliance?
Functionally yes, through the RADOS gateway, but you take on the operations that an appliance vendor would otherwise carry.
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.
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 OpenEBS
- OWASP ZAP vs Qovery
- OWASP ZAP vs Coolify
- OWASP ZAP vs Portworx
- OWASP ZAP vs Vultr
- OWASP ZAP vs Dokku
- OWASP ZAP vs Scaleway
- OWASP ZAP vs SST
- OWASP ZAP vs AWS (Amazon Web Services)
- OWASP ZAP vs Neon
- OWASP ZAP vs Wasabi
- OWASP ZAP vs Podman
- OWASP ZAP vs Azure Functions
- OWASP ZAP vs Deno Deploy
- OWASP ZAP vs Hetzner Cloud
- OWASP ZAP vs Infracost
- OWASP ZAP vs Lambda
- OWASP ZAP vs Linode
- Rook vs 1Password
- Rook vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Rook vs Norton 360
- Rook vs LastPass
- Rook vs Bitwarden
- Rook vs Burp Suite
- Rook vs Metasploit
- Rook vs Wireshark
- Rook vs authentik
- Rook vs Authelia
- Rook vs Infisical
- Rook vs Trivy
- Rook vs Feedzai
- Rook vs Frontegg
- Rook vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Rook vs JumpCloud
- Rook vs McAfee Total Protection
- Rook vs OpenEBS
- Rook vs Qovery
- Rook vs Coolify
- Rook vs Portworx
- Rook vs Vultr
- Rook vs Dokku
- Rook vs Scaleway
- Rook vs SST
- Rook vs AWS (Amazon Web Services)
- Rook vs Neon
- Rook vs Wasabi
- Rook vs Podman
- Rook vs Azure Functions
- Rook vs Deno Deploy
- Rook vs Hetzner Cloud
- Rook vs Infracost
- Rook vs Lambda
- Rook vs Linode