Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Trivy
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Trivy
Cybersecurity
Open-source vulnerability and misconfiguration scanner
- 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.; Trivy reports what public advisory databases know, so coverage varies by ecosystem and unfixed CVEs create noise
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Trivy covers Multi-target scanning.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Trivy 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 Trivy
- Multi-target scanning
- Vulnerability detection
- Misconfiguration checks
- Secret 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 Trivy
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Trivy
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Trivy
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Trivy
Trivy
- Failing a pull request when a container image introduces a known CVEnot OWASP ZAP
- Scanning Terraform and Kubernetes manifests for misconfiguration before applynot OWASP ZAP
- Catching committed secrets as part of an existing CI stepnot 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.
Trivy
- Reports what public advisory databases know, so coverage varies by ecosystem and unfixed CVEs create noise
- No built-in triage or exception workflow, so suppressing accepted risk is managed in config files
- Findings are point-in-time from CI, with no continuous runtime monitoring unless you add the commercial platform
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Trivy
Free- TrivyFree
- Full scanner
- Unlimited scans
- Community 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 Trivy if
- You need multi-target scanning.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
- You also want vulnerability detection.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Trivy better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Trivy at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Trivy?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Trivy at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Trivy run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Trivy runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
- 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 Trivy is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Trivy cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Trivy covers Multi-target scanning, Vulnerability detection, Misconfiguration checks, Secret detection.
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.
Trivy: Is Trivy free?
Yes, open source from Aqua Security with no licence fee. Aqua sells a commercial platform around it.
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.
Trivy: What can Trivy scan?
Container images, filesystems, Git repositories, Kubernetes clusters and infrastructure-as-code, for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, secrets and licences.
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.
Trivy: Does Trivy need a server?
No. It is a single binary, which is a large part of why it became a default in CI.
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 Feedzai
- OWASP ZAP vs Frontegg
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Boundary
- OWASP ZAP vs JumpCloud
- OWASP ZAP vs McAfee Total Protection
- OWASP ZAP vs Grype
- OWASP ZAP vs Snyk
- OWASP ZAP vs Chainguard
- OWASP ZAP vs Semgrep
- OWASP ZAP vs Ory Kratos
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Vault
- OWASP ZAP vs Arnica
- OWASP ZAP vs Proton Mail
- OWASP ZAP vs Veriff
- OWASP ZAP vs Brave Browser
- OWASP ZAP vs March Networks
- OWASP ZAP vs Salient CompleteView
- OWASP ZAP vs Sumsub
- OWASP ZAP vs Syft
- Trivy vs 1Password
- Trivy vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Trivy vs Norton 360
- Trivy vs LastPass
- Trivy vs Bitwarden
- Trivy vs Burp Suite
- Trivy vs Metasploit
- Trivy vs Wireshark
- Trivy vs authentik
- Trivy vs Authelia
- Trivy vs Infisical
- Trivy vs Feedzai
- Trivy vs Frontegg
- Trivy vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Trivy vs JumpCloud
- Trivy vs McAfee Total Protection
- Trivy vs Grype
- Trivy vs Snyk
- Trivy vs Chainguard
- Trivy vs Semgrep
- Trivy vs Ory Kratos
- Trivy vs HashiCorp Vault
- Trivy vs Arnica
- Trivy vs Proton Mail
- Trivy vs Veriff
- Trivy vs Brave Browser
- Trivy vs March Networks
- Trivy vs Salient CompleteView
- Trivy vs Sumsub
- Trivy vs Syft