Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs TrustArc
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
TrustArc
Cybersecurity
Privacy management platform with regulatory research and the TRUSTe certification programme
- 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.; TrustArc the software layer is generally shallower than OneTrust, particularly automated data discovery across large heterogeneous estates, so organisations with sprawling infrastructure often still need a separate discovery tool.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, TrustArc covers Nymity Research.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and TrustArc 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 TrustArc
- Nymity Research
- TRUSTe certification
- Consent and preference management
- Privacy assessments
- Data inventory and mapping
- Individual rights requests
- Cookie consent manager
- Privacy programme benchmarking
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 TrustArc
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot TrustArc
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot TrustArc
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot TrustArc
TrustArc
- A consumer brand that needs an independent privacy seal on its website because enterprise customers or app stores ask for third-party verificationnot OWASP ZAP
- A multinational privacy team that needs a maintained answer to what a given jurisdiction requires without retaining outside counsel for every questionnot OWASP ZAP
- An organisation running DPIAs at volume that wants templates tied to a maintained regulatory library rather than to a consultant word documentnot OWASP ZAP
- A privacy programme being audited that needs documented maturity benchmarking against a recognised framework of programme activitiesnot 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.
TrustArc
- The software layer is generally shallower than OneTrust, particularly automated data discovery across large heterogeneous estates, so organisations with sprawling infrastructure often still need a separate discovery tool.
- The integration catalogue is smaller than the market leader, which means more of the data inventory is maintained by hand and drifts out of date between reviews.
- Certification services are sold separately from the platform subscription, so the seal that is often the reason for choosing TrustArc is an extra line item and an extra annual renewal.
- Reported contract values vary enormously by module mix and organisation size, and the absence of published pricing means smaller buyers have no anchor and routinely discover the entry price is higher than expected.
- TrustArc stays inside privacy, so organisations that later want third-party risk, security compliance or ethics reporting on the same platform will be running a second vendor anyway.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
TrustArc
On request- TrustArc Privacy Platform$undefined/year
- Quoted by module, entity count and data volume
- TRUSTe certification and assessment services priced separately from platform subscription
- Nymity Research licensed as a separate module
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 TrustArc better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and TrustArc at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or TrustArc?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for TrustArc.
- Does OWASP ZAP or TrustArc run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. TrustArc runs on Web.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. TrustArc 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 TrustArc is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that TrustArc cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. TrustArc covers Nymity Research, TRUSTe certification, Consent and preference management, Privacy assessments.
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.
TrustArc: What does TrustArc have that OneTrust does not?
Nymity Research, a maintained regulatory intelligence library acquired in 2019, and the TRUSTe third-party certification and seal programme.
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.
TrustArc: How much does TrustArc cost?
Not published. Reported enterprise agreements range widely depending on modules and organisation size, and certification services are quoted on top of the platform subscription.
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.
TrustArc: Is TRUSTe the same company?
Yes. TrustArc is the renamed TRUSTe business and still operates the TRUSTe certification programme as a subsidiary.
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.
TrustArc: Does it handle cookie consent for Europe?
Yes, it includes a consent manager with scanning and banner delivery, though pure-play consent vendors are cheaper if that is all you need.
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 Osano
- OWASP ZAP vs BigID
- OWASP ZAP vs OneTrust
- OWASP ZAP vs DataGrail
- OWASP ZAP vs Transcend
- OWASP ZAP vs Termly
- OWASP ZAP vs Mullvad VPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Avast One
- OWASP ZAP vs ExpressVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs IVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs ProtonVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Securiti
- OWASP ZAP vs Unit21
- OWASP ZAP vs Veracode
- OWASP ZAP vs Very Good Security
- OWASP ZAP vs VIVOTEK VAST Security Station
- OWASP ZAP vs Windscribe
- OWASP ZAP vs Yoti
- TrustArc vs 1Password
- TrustArc vs Bitdefender Total Security
- TrustArc vs Norton 360
- TrustArc vs LastPass
- TrustArc vs Bitwarden
- TrustArc vs Burp Suite
- TrustArc vs Metasploit
- TrustArc vs Wireshark
- TrustArc vs authentik
- TrustArc vs Authelia
- TrustArc vs Infisical
- TrustArc vs Trivy
- TrustArc vs Feedzai
- TrustArc vs Frontegg
- TrustArc vs HashiCorp Boundary
- TrustArc vs JumpCloud
- TrustArc vs McAfee Total Protection
- TrustArc vs Osano
- TrustArc vs BigID
- TrustArc vs OneTrust
- TrustArc vs DataGrail
- TrustArc vs Transcend
- TrustArc vs Termly
- TrustArc vs Mullvad VPN
- TrustArc vs Avast One
- TrustArc vs ExpressVPN
- TrustArc vs IVPN
- TrustArc vs ProtonVPN
- TrustArc vs Securiti
- TrustArc vs Unit21
- TrustArc vs Veracode
- TrustArc vs Very Good Security
- TrustArc vs VIVOTEK VAST Security Station
- TrustArc vs Windscribe
- TrustArc vs Yoti