Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Soketi
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Soketi
Developer Tools
Self-hosted, Pusher-compatible WebSockets server with a stalled maintenance record
- 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.; Soketi maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Soketi 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 Soketi
- Pusher protocol compatibility
- Presence and private channels
- Horizontal scaling
- App management backends
- Webhooks
- Prometheus metrics
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 Soketi
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Soketi
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Soketi
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Soketi
Soketi
- A Laravel application that already uses Echo and wants to stop paying a hosted realtime providernot OWASP ZAP
- Realtime notifications or presence indicators where data must not leave your own infrastructure for compliance reasonsnot OWASP ZAP
- A local or CI environment that needs a Pusher-compatible server without hitting a paid accountnot OWASP ZAP
- A high-connection-count application where hosted per-connection pricing has become the largest line in the infrastructure billnot 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.
Soketi
- Maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
- Dependency drift on Node and uWebSockets.js will eventually force you to fork or migrate, and that cost is unbudgeted at the point you adopt it.
- There is no commercial support to buy, so a production incident at three in the morning is entirely your problem with no escalation path.
- Scaling beyond a single node needs Redis and careful configuration, and getting presence channels correct across nodes is a genuine source of subtle bugs.
- It implements the Pusher protocol rather than tracking it, so any protocol feature Pusher adds later will not appear, and the compatibility guarantee slowly decays.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Soketi
Free- SoketiFree
- MIT licensed
- Unlimited connections subject to your own hardware
- No vendor billing
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 Soketi if
- You need pusher protocol compatibility.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows.
- You also want presence and private channels.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Soketi better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Soketi at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Soketi?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Soketi at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Soketi run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Soketi runs on Linux, macOS, 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 Soketi is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Soketi cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility, Presence and private channels, Horizontal scaling, App management backends.
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.
Soketi: Is Soketi still maintained?
Barely. The maintainer has stated that available time is very limited and releases have been sparse; treat it as community-maintained.
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.
Soketi: Do I need to change my client code?
No. Pusher client SDKs and Laravel Echo work by changing the host, port and credentials.
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.
Soketi: What does it cost?
Nothing in licence fees. It is MIT licensed; you pay for the server it runs on.
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.
Soketi: What are people moving to?
Laravel Reverb for Laravel applications, and Sockudo, a Rust reimplementation, for others.
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 PartyKit
- OWASP ZAP vs Penpot
- OWASP ZAP vs Atlantis
- OWASP ZAP vs Coder
- OWASP ZAP vs Backstage
- OWASP ZAP vs Visual Studio Code
- OWASP ZAP vs GNU Emacs
- OWASP ZAP vs Bazel
- OWASP ZAP vs Eclipse IDE
- OWASP ZAP vs Pants Build
- OWASP ZAP vs Swagger UI
- OWASP ZAP vs Ansible
- OWASP ZAP vs Cody
- OWASP ZAP vs ConfigCat
- OWASP ZAP vs Cortex
- OWASP ZAP vs Dagger
- OWASP ZAP vs Deno
- OWASP ZAP vs Fig
- Soketi vs 1Password
- Soketi vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Soketi vs Norton 360
- Soketi vs LastPass
- Soketi vs Bitwarden
- Soketi vs Burp Suite
- Soketi vs Metasploit
- Soketi vs Wireshark
- Soketi vs authentik
- Soketi vs Authelia
- Soketi vs Infisical
- Soketi vs Trivy
- Soketi vs Feedzai
- Soketi vs Frontegg
- Soketi vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Soketi vs JumpCloud
- Soketi vs McAfee Total Protection
- Soketi vs PartyKit
- Soketi vs Penpot
- Soketi vs Atlantis
- Soketi vs Coder
- Soketi vs Backstage
- Soketi vs Visual Studio Code
- Soketi vs GNU Emacs
- Soketi vs Bazel
- Soketi vs Eclipse IDE
- Soketi vs Pants Build
- Soketi vs Swagger UI
- Soketi vs Ansible
- Soketi vs Cody
- Soketi vs ConfigCat
- Soketi vs Cortex
- Soketi vs Dagger
- Soketi vs Deno
- Soketi vs Fig