Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

OWASP ZAP vs Sourcegraph

OWASP ZAP logo

OWASP ZAP

Cybersecurity

Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite
Sourcegraph logo

Sourcegraph

Developer Tools

Code search and intelligence platform for large codebases with Cody AI assistant

From
$16000/year
Free plan
No
Full reviewWebsite

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.; Sourcegraph enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Sourcegraph actually diverge.

Attributes where OWASP ZAP and Sourcegraph differ
AttributeOWASP ZAPSourcegraph
Starting priceFree$16000/year
Pricing modelfreesubscription
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsDesktop, Cli, ApiCloud, Self-hosted
CategoryCybersecurityDeveloper Tools
Founded2001Unknown

Identical on both: 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 Sourcegraph

Nothing recorded that OWASP ZAP does not also cover.

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 Sourcegraph
  • Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Sourcegraph
  • Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Sourcegraph
  • Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Sourcegraph

Sourcegraph

  • Large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositoriesnot OWASP ZAP
  • Enterprise governance and code ownership trackingnot OWASP ZAP
  • AI-assisted bug hunting and security pattern detectionnot OWASP ZAP
  • Onboarding engineers into large unfamiliar codebasesnot OWASP ZAP
  • Regulatory compliance and code audit trailsnot 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.

Sourcegraph

  • Enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams
  • No free tier or standard plan published; all options require custom sales engagement
  • Complex enterprise-only positioning limits adoption compared to GitHub Copilot's pervasiveness
  • Requires indexing entire codebase; not suitable for small or ephemeral projects

Pricing, plan by plan

OWASP ZAP

Free
  • Free & Open SourceFree
    • Full functionality
    • Active & passive scanning
    • Spider

Sourcegraph

$16000/year
  • Enterprise$16000/year
    • Scales with team size
    • Credits for AI features per user
    • Deep Search

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.
OWASP ZAP review

Choose Sourcegraph if

  • You work on Cloud, Self-hosted.
Sourcegraph review

Questions people ask

Is OWASP ZAP or Sourcegraph better?
Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Sourcegraph at $16000/year, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Sourcegraph?
OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and $16000/year for Sourcegraph.
Does OWASP ZAP or Sourcegraph run on more platforms?
OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Sourcegraph runs on Cloud, Self-hosted.
Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year.
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 Sourcegraph is typically brought in for.
What can OWASP ZAP do that Sourcegraph cannot?
OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on OWASP ZAP

More on Sourcegraph

Keep looking

Other head to heads