Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Transmit Security
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Transmit Security
Cybersecurity
Customer identity platform built around passwordless and fraud signals
- 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.; Transmit Security pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Transmit Security covers Passwordless authentication.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Transmit Security actually diverge.
| Attribute | OWASP ZAP | Transmit Security |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | Free | On request |
| Pricing model | free | quote |
| Free tier | Yes | No |
| Platforms | Desktop, Cli, Api | Web, iOS, Android |
| Founded | 2001 | Unknown |
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 Transmit Security
- Passwordless authentication
- Detection and response
- Identity verification
- Orchestration
- Account recovery
- Bot and automation detection
- Composable APIs
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 Transmit Security
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Transmit Security
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Transmit Security
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Transmit Security
Transmit Security
- A bank moving a consumer base off passwords to passkeys without losing customers at the migration stepnot OWASP ZAP
- An insurer whose account recovery flow is the main account takeover route and needs risk scoring inside itnot OWASP ZAP
- A retailer that wants bot detection at login rather than only at checkoutnot OWASP ZAP
- An organisation replacing an in-house customer login system that has become an unfunded engineering liabilitynot 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.
Transmit Security
- Pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units.
- Migrating a live consumer identity base is a high risk project, and credential migration constraints mean some users must re-register, which shows up as measurable churn.
- The vendor is smaller than the identity incumbents, so the partner and systems integrator pool is thinner and staffing a large programme is harder.
- Workforce identity is not the focus, so an organisation wanting one vendor for employees and customers will still run two platforms.
- The fraud detection value depends on traffic volume feeding the models, so a smaller deployment gets less benefit from exactly the capability that justified choosing it over a plain identity provider.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Transmit Security
On request- Transmit Security Platform$undefined/year
- Priced per monthly active user or per transaction by service
- Services licensed individually or as a platform
- Free developer tier for evaluation
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 Transmit Security if
- You need passwordless authentication.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want detection and response.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Transmit Security better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Transmit Security at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Transmit Security?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for Transmit Security.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Transmit Security run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Transmit Security 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. Transmit Security 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 Transmit Security is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Transmit Security cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Transmit Security covers Passwordless authentication, Detection and response, Identity verification, Orchestration.
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.
Transmit Security: Do we have to replace our existing identity provider?
No. The services are composable, so detection and response or verification can be adopted alongside an existing provider such as Okta or Entra ID.
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.
Transmit Security: Is fraud detection an extra licence?
It is a separate service, but it is designed to run inside the authentication flow rather than as a bolted-on second vendor. Confirm which services are in your quote.
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.
Transmit Security: Is there a way to try it?
Yes, a free developer tier exists for evaluation, though production use is an enterprise agreement.
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
More on Transmit Security
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 Descope
- OWASP ZAP vs NICE Actimize
- OWASP ZAP vs Beyond Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs Sardine
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs Unit21
- OWASP ZAP vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- OWASP ZAP vs Featurespace ARIC Risk Hub
- OWASP ZAP vs Ping Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs Stytch
- OWASP ZAP vs Rhombus Systems
- OWASP ZAP vs Semgrep
- OWASP ZAP vs Spot AI
- OWASP ZAP vs Syft
- OWASP ZAP vs ThetaRay
- OWASP ZAP vs Trulioo
- Transmit Security vs 1Password
- Transmit Security vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Transmit Security vs Norton 360
- Transmit Security vs LastPass
- Transmit Security vs Bitwarden
- Transmit Security vs Burp Suite
- Transmit Security vs Metasploit
- Transmit Security vs Wireshark
- Transmit Security vs authentik
- Transmit Security vs Authelia
- Transmit Security vs Infisical
- Transmit Security vs Trivy
- Transmit Security vs Feedzai
- Transmit Security vs Frontegg
- Transmit Security vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Transmit Security vs JumpCloud
- Transmit Security vs McAfee Total Protection
- Transmit Security vs Descope
- Transmit Security vs NICE Actimize
- Transmit Security vs Beyond Identity
- Transmit Security vs Sardine
- Transmit Security vs Socure
- Transmit Security vs Unit21
- Transmit Security vs Entrust Identity as a Service
- Transmit Security vs Featurespace ARIC Risk Hub
- Transmit Security vs Ping Identity
- Transmit Security vs Stytch
- Transmit Security vs Rhombus Systems
- Transmit Security vs Semgrep
- Transmit Security vs Spot AI
- Transmit Security vs Syft
- Transmit Security vs ThetaRay
- Transmit Security vs Trulioo