Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Sumsub
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Sumsub
Cybersecurity
Identity verification and AML screening priced per verification
- From
- $1.35/verification
- 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.; Sumsub the published per-verification rate is undercut by a monthly minimum of 149 or 299 dollars, so low volume businesses pay a much higher effective rate than the headline suggests.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Sumsub covers Document verification.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Sumsub 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 Sumsub
- Document verification
- AML screening
- KYB verification
- No-code flow builder
- Transaction monitoring
- Travel Rule
- Fraud and duplicate detection
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 Sumsub
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Sumsub
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Sumsub
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Sumsub
Sumsub
- A crypto exchange needing KYC plus Travel Rule handling under one contractnot OWASP ZAP
- A gambling operator entering several European markets and needing document coverage without a separate vendor per countrynot OWASP ZAP
- A fintech that wants a published price it can model in a business case before speaking to a salespersonnot OWASP ZAP
- A marketplace verifying both individual sellers and the companies behind them without buying two productsnot 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.
Sumsub
- The published per-verification rate is undercut by a monthly minimum of 149 or 299 dollars, so low volume businesses pay a much higher effective rate than the headline suggests.
- You are billed per verification attempt in most configurations, meaning applicant drop-off and resubmissions cost money without producing a customer.
- Pass rates and document support vary noticeably by country, and a market that works well in Europe can produce materially worse rejection rates in parts of Africa and South East Asia.
- The AML screening tier bundles list coverage that large institutions would normally buy separately and tune, giving less control over match thresholds than a dedicated screening vendor.
- The company originated in Russia before restructuring to a UK entity, and some financial institutions still raise that history in vendor risk review, which can slow or block procurement at conservative banks.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Sumsub
$1.35/verification- Basic$1.35/verification
- 149 USD minimum monthly spend
- Document verification and liveness
- No-code flow builder
- Compliance$1.85/verification
- 299 USD minimum monthly spend
- Everything in Basic
- AML sanctions and PEP screening
- Enterprise$undefined/year
- Negotiated volume rate
- Custom jurisdictions and languages
- Dedicated support
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 Sumsub if
- You need document verification.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want aml screening.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Sumsub better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Sumsub at $1.35/verification, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Sumsub?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and $1.35/verification for Sumsub.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Sumsub run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Sumsub 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. Sumsub starts at $1.35/verification.
- 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 Sumsub is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Sumsub cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Sumsub covers Document verification, AML screening, KYB verification, No-code flow builder.
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.
Sumsub: What does a verification actually cost?
1.35 USD on Basic and 1.85 USD on Compliance, but with 149 and 299 USD monthly minimums respectively. Below roughly 110 or 160 checks a month you are paying the minimum, not the rate.
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.
Sumsub: Do failed verifications get charged?
Attempts are generally billable, so a poor onboarding funnel raises your bill. Confirm the exact resubmission policy in your contract.
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.
Sumsub: Does it cover business verification?
Yes, KYB with company registry lookups and beneficial owner resolution is part of the platform rather than a separate product.
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 Shufti Pro
- OWASP ZAP vs Jumio
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs Signicat
- OWASP ZAP vs iDenfy
- OWASP ZAP vs Trulioo
- OWASP ZAP vs Veriff
- OWASP ZAP vs IDnow
- OWASP ZAP vs Quantexa
- OWASP ZAP vs Fenergo
- OWASP ZAP vs NICE Actimize
- OWASP ZAP vs Yoti
- OWASP ZAP vs Microsoft Sentinel
- OWASP ZAP vs Mimecast
- OWASP ZAP vs Motorola Vigilant
- OWASP ZAP vs Nessus
- OWASP ZAP vs NordPass
- OWASP ZAP vs One Identity
- Sumsub vs 1Password
- Sumsub vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Sumsub vs Norton 360
- Sumsub vs LastPass
- Sumsub vs Bitwarden
- Sumsub vs Burp Suite
- Sumsub vs Metasploit
- Sumsub vs Wireshark
- Sumsub vs authentik
- Sumsub vs Authelia
- Sumsub vs Infisical
- Sumsub vs Trivy
- Sumsub vs Feedzai
- Sumsub vs Frontegg
- Sumsub vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Sumsub vs JumpCloud
- Sumsub vs McAfee Total Protection
- Sumsub vs Shufti Pro
- Sumsub vs Jumio
- Sumsub vs Socure
- Sumsub vs Signicat
- Sumsub vs iDenfy
- Sumsub vs Trulioo
- Sumsub vs Veriff
- Sumsub vs IDnow
- Sumsub vs Quantexa
- Sumsub vs Fenergo
- Sumsub vs NICE Actimize
- Sumsub vs Yoti
- Sumsub vs Microsoft Sentinel
- Sumsub vs Mimecast
- Sumsub vs Motorola Vigilant
- Sumsub vs Nessus
- Sumsub vs NordPass
- Sumsub vs One Identity