Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Stytch
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Stytch
Cybersecurity
Identity platform with passwordless auth, passkeys and bot detection.
- 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.; Stytch free tier limited to 10,000 monthly active users; scaling beyond this requires custom pricing negotiation
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Stytch actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), 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 Stytch
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 Stytch
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Stytch
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Stytch
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Stytch
Stytch
- Applications prioritising passwordless and passkey authenticationnot OWASP ZAP
- SaaS platforms requiring AI agent authentication and machine-to-machine flowsnot OWASP ZAP
- Companies with emerging identity needs such as bot detection and device intelligencenot OWASP ZAP
- Organisations building with Next.js and React requiring modern auth patternsnot OWASP ZAP
- Applications needing transparent pricing without surprise tiers or feature gatingnot 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.
Stytch
- Free tier limited to 10,000 monthly active users; scaling beyond this requires custom pricing negotiation
- Fraud prevention capabilities billed at $0.005 per fingerprint for usage exceeding 10,000 free checks
- Additional SSO or SCIM connections beyond the 5 included in free tier cost $125 each
- Brand customisation and email removal require one-time payment of $99
- HIPAA and advanced fraud protection only available in Enterprise tier
- No native UI builder; requires custom frontend development for fully-branded auth flows
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Stytch
Free- FreeFree
- 10,000 monthly active users and AI agents
- Unlimited organisations
- 5 SSO or SCIM connections
- Scaled$undefined/variable
- Usage-based pricing for users exceeding 10,000
- All free tier features
- Volume discounts available
- Enterprise$undefined/variable
- Custom pricing
- Discounted volume rates
- Enterprise support SLA
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.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Stytch better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Stytch at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Stytch?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Stytch at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Stytch run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Stytch runs on Web, API.
- 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 Stytch is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Stytch 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.
Stytch: What is included in Stytch's free tier?
The free tier includes 10,000 monthly active users (human and AI agents), unlimited organisations, 5 SSO or SCIM connections, and 1,000 machine-to-machine tokens with full authentication features.
SourceOWASP 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.
Stytch: Does Stytch support AI agent authentication?
Yes. Stytch provides native AI agent authentication and authorisation, with support for the Model Context Protocol (MCP) for authenticating AI agents accessing external systems.
SourceOWASP 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.
Stytch: What fraud prevention features does Stytch offer?
Stytch includes bot detection with 99.99% accuracy, device fingerprinting, invisible CAPTCHA, and zero-day device intelligence built into all tiers.
SourceOWASP 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 Cisco Duo
- OWASP ZAP vs Transmit Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Descope
- OWASP ZAP vs Authy
- OWASP ZAP vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- OWASP ZAP vs VMware Carbon Black
- OWASP ZAP vs NICE Actimize
- OWASP ZAP vs Salient CompleteView
- OWASP ZAP vs Sumsub
- OWASP ZAP vs Tuta
- OWASP ZAP vs Camio
- OWASP ZAP vs Clerk
- Stytch vs 1Password
- Stytch vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Stytch vs Norton 360
- Stytch vs LastPass
- Stytch vs Bitwarden
- Stytch vs Burp Suite
- Stytch vs Metasploit
- Stytch vs Wireshark
- Stytch vs authentik
- Stytch vs Authelia
- Stytch vs Infisical
- Stytch vs Trivy
- Stytch vs Feedzai
- Stytch vs Frontegg
- Stytch vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Stytch vs JumpCloud
- Stytch vs McAfee Total Protection
- Stytch vs Cisco Duo
- Stytch vs Transmit Security
- Stytch vs Descope
- Stytch vs Authy
- Stytch vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- Stytch vs VMware Carbon Black
- Stytch vs NICE Actimize
- Stytch vs Salient CompleteView
- Stytch vs Sumsub
- Stytch vs Tuta
- Stytch vs Camio
- Stytch vs Clerk