Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Teleport
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Teleport
Cybersecurity
Certificate-based access to servers, Kubernetes, databases and apps, replacing shared credentials and VPNs
- From
- On request
- 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.; Teleport pricing is not published and is described as active users plus protected resources, so an autoscaling estate cannot forecast the bill and finance teams discover the true cost only after the first true-up.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Teleport covers Short-lived certificates.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Teleport 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 Teleport
- Short-lived certificates
- Protocol coverage
- Session recording and replay
- Access Requests
- Device Trust
- Identity provider integration
- Machine identity
- FIPS and FedRAMP builds
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 Teleport
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Teleport
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Teleport
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Teleport
Teleport
- Removing long-lived SSH keys and shared database passwords so that offboarding an engineer takes one action in the identity providernot OWASP ZAP
- Producing session recordings and per-user database audit trails as direct evidence for SOC 2 or FedRAMPnot OWASP ZAP
- Giving contractors or on-call engineers time-boxed, approved access to production instead of standing admin rightsnot OWASP ZAP
- Replacing a flat VPN with per-resource authorisation across servers, Kubernetes and internal web appsnot 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.
Teleport
- Pricing is not published and is described as active users plus protected resources, so an autoscaling estate cannot forecast the bill and finance teams discover the true cost only after the first true-up.
- The proxy is a hard dependency on reaching production, so it needs its own high availability deployment and a tested break-glass path or an outage in Teleport becomes an outage in your ability to respond to outages.
- The open source Community Edition omits Access Requests, Device Trust and the FIPS builds, which are exactly the controls an auditor asks about, so the free tier rarely survives a compliance review.
- Self-hosting means running and upgrading a certificate authority and its backing store, and Teleport releases frequently enough that upgrade work becomes a standing operational commitment.
- Coverage across protocols is uneven in depth, so teams with legacy systems, unusual databases or bespoke network appliances find gaps that still require the old VPN to remain in place alongside it.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Teleport
On request- Teleport Community Edition$undefined/year
- Open source, self-hosted
- SSH, Kubernetes, database and app access
- Session recording
- Teleport Enterprise$undefined/year
- Cloud-hosted or self-hosted
- Access Requests and approval workflow
- Device Trust and hardware key enforcement
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 Teleport if
- You need short-lived certificates.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes, Cloud.
- You also want protocol coverage.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Teleport better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Teleport at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Teleport?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for Teleport.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Teleport run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Teleport runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes, Cloud.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Teleport starts at On request.
- 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 Teleport is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Teleport cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Teleport covers Short-lived certificates, Protocol coverage, Session recording and replay, Access Requests.
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.
Teleport: Is the open source edition usable in production?
Yes, but it lacks Access Requests, Device Trust and FIPS builds, which most compliance programmes end up requiring.
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.
Teleport: How is it priced?
Not publicly. The vendor prices on active users and protected resources and provides a quote after a sales conversation.
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.
Teleport: What happens if Teleport goes down?
Nobody reaches the resources behind it, so you need a highly available deployment and a documented break-glass procedure.
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.
Teleport: Does it replace our VPN?
For anything you put behind it, yes. Legacy systems and appliances it does not support will keep the VPN alive.
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 HashiCorp Vault
- OWASP ZAP vs Beyond Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs Falco
- OWASP ZAP vs Delinea
- OWASP ZAP vs Sysdig
- OWASP ZAP vs BeyondTrust
- OWASP ZAP vs One Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs Zscaler Internet Access
- OWASP ZAP vs Doppler
- OWASP ZAP vs Akeyless
- OWASP ZAP vs DataGrail
- OWASP ZAP vs Envysion
- Teleport vs 1Password
- Teleport vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Teleport vs Norton 360
- Teleport vs LastPass
- Teleport vs Bitwarden
- Teleport vs Burp Suite
- Teleport vs Metasploit
- Teleport vs Wireshark
- Teleport vs authentik
- Teleport vs Authelia
- Teleport vs Infisical
- Teleport vs Trivy
- Teleport vs Feedzai
- Teleport vs Frontegg
- Teleport vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Teleport vs JumpCloud
- Teleport vs McAfee Total Protection
- Teleport vs HashiCorp Vault
- Teleport vs Beyond Identity
- Teleport vs Falco
- Teleport vs Delinea
- Teleport vs Sysdig
- Teleport vs BeyondTrust
- Teleport vs One Identity
- Teleport vs Zscaler Internet Access
- Teleport vs Doppler
- Teleport vs Akeyless
- Teleport vs DataGrail
- Teleport vs Envysion