Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Signicat
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Signicat
Cybersecurity
European digital identity hub connecting national eID schemes
- 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.; Signicat national eID scheme fees are passed through on top of Signicat's own charge, so a single-country business almost always pays less by integrating with the scheme directly.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Signicat covers eID scheme brokering.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Signicat 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 Signicat
- eID scheme brokering
- Qualified electronic signatures
- Document verification
- AML screening
- Authentication
- Digital onboarding flows
- eIDAS compliance
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 Signicat
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Signicat
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Signicat
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Signicat
Signicat
- A lender expanding from Norway into Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands without four separate eID integrationsnot OWASP ZAP
- An insurer needing eIDAS qualified signatures on policy documents that will hold up in a European courtnot OWASP ZAP
- A bank that wants customers to onboard with their existing national bank ID rather than photographing a passportnot OWASP ZAP
- A public sector body needing cross-border recognition of notified eID schemes under eIDASnot 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.
Signicat
- National eID scheme fees are passed through on top of Signicat's own charge, so a single-country business almost always pays less by integrating with the scheme directly.
- Value is concentrated in Northern and Western Europe, and coverage in Southern and Eastern Europe is thinner, so a pan-European rollout still hits gaps requiring document fallback.
- Pricing is per transaction and quoted, and because scheme rates vary by country the cost per onboarded customer differs materially between markets in ways that complicate unit economics.
- Each eID scheme connection typically carries its own setup fee and approval process, so adding a country is a project with a lead time rather than a configuration change.
- Availability is tied to the national schemes, meaning an outage at BankID or MitID stops your onboarding entirely and there is no vendor-side mitigation for it.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Signicat
On request- Signicat Platform$undefined/year
- Priced per transaction with national scheme fees passed through
- Signature and verification products licensed separately
- Setup fee per eID scheme connected
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 Signicat if
- You need eid scheme brokering.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want qualified electronic signatures.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Signicat better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Signicat at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Signicat?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for Signicat.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Signicat run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Signicat 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. Signicat 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 Signicat is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Signicat cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Signicat covers eID scheme brokering, Qualified electronic signatures, Document verification, AML screening.
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.
Signicat: Is this an alternative to a document verification vendor?
Only where national eID exists. In markets with a mature bank ID scheme it is better; elsewhere you fall back to document checks, which Signicat also provides.
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.
Signicat: Do we still pay the eID schemes?
Yes. Scheme fees are passed through in addition to Signicat charges. Ask for the split when comparing to a direct integration.
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.
Signicat: Are signatures legally qualified?
Signicat supports eIDAS qualified electronic signatures, which carry the highest legal standing in the EU, as well as advanced signatures.
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 Jumio
- OWASP ZAP vs Sumsub
- OWASP ZAP vs IDnow
- OWASP ZAP vs Trulioo
- OWASP ZAP vs Veriff
- OWASP ZAP vs iDenfy
- OWASP ZAP vs Yoti
- OWASP ZAP vs Shufti Pro
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs March Networks
- OWASP ZAP vs Featurespace ARIC Risk Hub
- OWASP ZAP vs Semperis
- OWASP ZAP vs MetricStream
- OWASP ZAP vs Microsoft Defender
- OWASP ZAP vs Mimecast
- OWASP ZAP vs Motorola Vigilant
- OWASP ZAP vs Nessus
- OWASP ZAP vs Microsoft Sentinel
- Signicat vs 1Password
- Signicat vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Signicat vs Norton 360
- Signicat vs LastPass
- Signicat vs Bitwarden
- Signicat vs Burp Suite
- Signicat vs Metasploit
- Signicat vs Wireshark
- Signicat vs authentik
- Signicat vs Authelia
- Signicat vs Infisical
- Signicat vs Trivy
- Signicat vs Feedzai
- Signicat vs Frontegg
- Signicat vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Signicat vs JumpCloud
- Signicat vs McAfee Total Protection
- Signicat vs Jumio
- Signicat vs Sumsub
- Signicat vs IDnow
- Signicat vs Trulioo
- Signicat vs Veriff
- Signicat vs iDenfy
- Signicat vs Yoti
- Signicat vs Shufti Pro
- Signicat vs Socure
- Signicat vs March Networks
- Signicat vs Featurespace ARIC Risk Hub
- Signicat vs Semperis
- Signicat vs MetricStream
- Signicat vs Microsoft Defender
- Signicat vs Mimecast
- Signicat vs Motorola Vigilant
- Signicat vs Nessus
- Signicat vs Microsoft Sentinel