Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Steampipe
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Steampipe
Developer Tools
Query cloud APIs, SaaS tools and code with SQL, with no extract or load step
- 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.; Steampipe aGPL-3.0 across all four engines is a procurement blocker at organisations that ban the licence outright, and the network clause reaches any internal portal or service that puts a web interface in front of it.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Steampipe covers SQL over live APIs.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Steampipe 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 Steampipe
- SQL over live APIs
- Wide plugin set
- Embedded Postgres
- Compliance benchmarks
- Joins across providers
- Hosted option
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 Steampipe
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Steampipe
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Steampipe
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Steampipe
Steampipe
- Security teams answering posture questions against live cloud accounts rather than a nightly exportnot OWASP ZAP
- Compliance evidence gathering where the answer must reflect the account at the moment it is askednot OWASP ZAP
- Inventory and drift questions spanning several cloud providers in one querynot OWASP ZAP
- Engineers who would rather write SQL than learn each provider command line toolnot 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.
Steampipe
- AGPL-3.0 across all four engines is a procurement blocker at organisations that ban the licence outright, and the network clause reaches any internal portal or service that puts a web interface in front of it.
- Dashboards, benchmarks and mods were removed from Steampipe entirely at version 1.0 in October 2024 and now live in a separate product, so pre-2024 documentation and tutorials describe commands that no longer exist.
- Live querying is bound by cloud provider API rate limits and keeps no persistent store by default, which is why a separate DuckDB-backed product exists for log volumes and why large accounts return slowly.
- The company is fifteen people and bootstrapped, maintaining four command line tools plus a hosted service plus two further products, and the newer tools have thin community traction relative to that surface area.
- Hosted tiers include only three users regardless of tier, with additional Enterprise users charged separately, so a team of thirty costs an order of magnitude more than the headline figure before compute and storage are counted.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Steampipe
Free- Steampipe CLIFree
- AGPL-3.0
- All plugins
- No user or query limits
- Pipes DeveloperFree
- One user
- 400 compute minutes
- 3GB storage
- Pipes Team$49/month
- Three users
- 2,000 compute minutes
- 20GB storage
- Pipes Enterprise$249/month
- Three users
- 10,000 compute minutes
- 100GB storage
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 Steampipe if
- You need sql over live apis.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker, Web.
- You also want wide plugin set.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Steampipe better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Steampipe at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Steampipe?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Steampipe at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Steampipe run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Steampipe runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker, Web.
- 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 Steampipe is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Steampipe cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Steampipe covers SQL over live APIs, Wide plugin set, Embedded Postgres, Compliance benchmarks.
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.
Steampipe: When did Steampipe become AGPL?
May 2021, about four months after the project went public. It is a settled licence rather than a recent change, and predates the Business Source Licence wave it is often confused with.
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.
Steampipe: Where did the dashboards and benchmarks go?
Into Powerpipe. They were deprecated in March 2024 and removed from Steampipe at version 1.0 in October 2024, so the check, dashboard, mod and variable commands are gone.
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.
Steampipe: Is it fast on a large cloud estate?
Not always. Queries call provider APIs at request time, so rate limits rather than query planning set the pace, and there is no persistent store by default.
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.
Steampipe: Does the AGPL affect internal use?
Running it internally for your own analysis is fine. Putting a web interface in front of it that other people use is where the network clause becomes a question for your legal team.
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.
Steampipe: Is a bootstrapped vendor a risk?
It cuts both ways. There is no investor pressure toward a licence change or an exit, and there are also fifteen people supporting a large product surface.
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 Atlantis
- OWASP ZAP vs Jitsu
- OWASP ZAP vs Frappe
- OWASP ZAP vs Visual Studio Code
- OWASP ZAP vs Penpot
- 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 Helix
- OWASP ZAP vs JFrog Artifactory
- OWASP ZAP vs Namespace
- OWASP ZAP vs Nix
- OWASP ZAP vs Nixpacks
- OWASP ZAP vs Octopus Deploy
- OWASP ZAP vs Okteto
- Steampipe vs 1Password
- Steampipe vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Steampipe vs Norton 360
- Steampipe vs LastPass
- Steampipe vs Bitwarden
- Steampipe vs Burp Suite
- Steampipe vs Metasploit
- Steampipe vs Wireshark
- Steampipe vs authentik
- Steampipe vs Authelia
- Steampipe vs Infisical
- Steampipe vs Trivy
- Steampipe vs Feedzai
- Steampipe vs Frontegg
- Steampipe vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Steampipe vs JumpCloud
- Steampipe vs McAfee Total Protection
- Steampipe vs Atlantis
- Steampipe vs Jitsu
- Steampipe vs Frappe
- Steampipe vs Visual Studio Code
- Steampipe vs Penpot
- Steampipe vs GNU Emacs
- Steampipe vs Bazel
- Steampipe vs Eclipse IDE
- Steampipe vs Pants Build
- Steampipe vs Swagger UI
- Steampipe vs Ansible
- Steampipe vs Helix
- Steampipe vs JFrog Artifactory
- Steampipe vs Namespace
- Steampipe vs Nix
- Steampipe vs Nixpacks
- Steampipe vs Octopus Deploy
- Steampipe vs Okteto