Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Umami
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Umami
Marketing
Open source, cookie-free web analytics you can self-host for the cost of a database
- 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.; Umami there is no cohort analysis, retention curve, session replay or multi-touch attribution, so a marketing team that needs to justify channel spend will still buy a second tool and Umami becomes a supplementary dashboard.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Umami covers Cookie-free tracking.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Umami actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).
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 Umami
- Cookie-free tracking
- Self-hosting
- Small tracking script
- Custom events
- Funnels and goals
- Multi-site and teams
- Public dashboards
- API access
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 Umami
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Umami
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Umami
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Umami
Umami
- A developer who wants traffic numbers on a personal or client site without adding a consent bannernot OWASP ZAP
- An organisation whose legal or procurement team has ruled out sending visitor data to a US advertising companynot OWASP ZAP
- A high-traffic site where hosted analytics priced by pageview band has become expensive and self-hosting removes the ceiling entirelynot OWASP ZAP
- A team that wants analytics data in a database they already control so they can query and join it themselvesnot 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.
Umami
- There is no cohort analysis, retention curve, session replay or multi-touch attribution, so a marketing team that needs to justify channel spend will still buy a second tool and Umami becomes a supplementary dashboard.
- Self-hosting is only free in licence terms; you own the database, the upgrades, the backups and the query performance at scale, and a busy site's events table grows quickly enough to need real attention.
- Because it stores no persistent identifier, it cannot follow a user across devices or sessions in any meaningful way, which makes returning-visitor and lifetime-value questions unanswerable by design rather than by omission.
- Cloud overage is billed per event beyond the plan allowance, so a traffic spike or a badly instrumented custom event can produce a bill materially above the $20 or $200 headline before anyone notices.
- It is maintained by a small team, so the pace of new capability is modest and enterprise expectations such as SSO, granular role permissions and formal support agreements are limited compared with commercial analytics vendors.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Umami
Free- Self-hostedFree
- MIT licensed, no licence fee
- No event limit imposed by the software
- Unlimited websites and users
- Cloud HobbyFree
- Up to 100,000 events per month
- 3 websites
- 6 months data retention
- Cloud Pro$20/month
- Up to 1,000,000 events per month
- Unlimited websites
- Unlimited team members
- Cloud Business$200/month
- Up to 10,000,000 events per month
- All Pro features
- Higher volume overage rate
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 Umami if
- You need cookie-free tracking.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Web, Linux.
- You also want self-hosting.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Umami better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Umami at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Umami?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Umami at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Umami run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Umami runs on Web, Linux.
- 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 Umami is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Umami cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Umami covers Cookie-free tracking, Self-hosting, Small tracking script, Custom events.
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.
Umami: Is Umami really free?
Self-hosted, yes; it is MIT licensed with no event cap. You pay for the server and database. Umami Cloud has a free tier at 100,000 events a month and paid tiers from $20.
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.
Umami: Do I need a cookie consent banner?
For Umami analytics specifically, generally no, because it sets no cookies and stores no personal data. Other tags on your site may still require one.
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.
Umami: Can it replace Google Analytics?
For traffic, referrers and event counts, yes. For attribution modelling, audiences and advertising integration, no.
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.
Umami: What does it need to run?
A container and a PostgreSQL or MySQL database. Most people deploy it on infrastructure they already pay for.
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 Matomo
- OWASP ZAP vs Plausible
- OWASP ZAP vs Fathom Analytics
- OWASP ZAP vs Mautic
- OWASP ZAP vs Countly
- OWASP ZAP vs Freshpaint
- OWASP ZAP vs Simple Analytics
- OWASP ZAP vs Attribution
- OWASP ZAP vs CallRail
- OWASP ZAP vs Microsoft Clarity
- OWASP ZAP vs Octoboard
- OWASP ZAP vs Onclusive
- OWASP ZAP vs WebEngage
- OWASP ZAP vs Woopra
- OWASP ZAP vs Wunderkind
- OWASP ZAP vs Whatagraph
- OWASP ZAP vs MoEngage
- OWASP ZAP vs Optimizely
- Umami vs 1Password
- Umami vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Umami vs Norton 360
- Umami vs LastPass
- Umami vs Bitwarden
- Umami vs Burp Suite
- Umami vs Metasploit
- Umami vs Wireshark
- Umami vs authentik
- Umami vs Authelia
- Umami vs Infisical
- Umami vs Trivy
- Umami vs Feedzai
- Umami vs Frontegg
- Umami vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Umami vs JumpCloud
- Umami vs McAfee Total Protection
- Umami vs Matomo
- Umami vs Plausible
- Umami vs Fathom Analytics
- Umami vs Mautic
- Umami vs Countly
- Umami vs Freshpaint
- Umami vs Simple Analytics
- Umami vs Attribution
- Umami vs CallRail
- Umami vs Microsoft Clarity
- Umami vs Octoboard
- Umami vs Onclusive
- Umami vs WebEngage
- Umami vs Woopra
- Umami vs Wunderkind
- Umami vs Whatagraph
- Umami vs MoEngage
- Umami vs Optimizely