Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Veriff
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Veriff
Cybersecurity
Document and biometric identity verification with published per-check pricing
- From
- $0.8/verification
- 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.; Veriff you pay per verification attempt, not per verified customer, so a confusing capture flow or poor lighting on mobile makes you pay two or three times for one onboarding.
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Veriff covers Document verification.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Veriff 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 Veriff
- Document verification
- Biometric liveness
- Hybrid review
- Screening add-ons
- Ongoing monitoring
- Age estimation
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 Veriff
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Veriff
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Veriff
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Veriff
Veriff
- A crypto exchange that needs a published rate to model unit economics before committing to a KYC vendornot OWASP ZAP
- A marketplace verifying sellers in dozens of countries where a single document library matters more than depth in one marketnot OWASP ZAP
- A mobility platform running age and licence checks at signup with volumes too small for an enterprise contractnot OWASP ZAP
- A regulated firm wanting automated decisions by default but human review on borderline cases, priced explicitlynot 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.
Veriff
- You pay per verification attempt, not per verified customer, so a confusing capture flow or poor lighting on mobile makes you pay two or three times for one onboarding.
- The headline $0.80 covers the document and selfie check only; adding PEP and sanctions screening at $0.64 nearly doubles the per-check cost, which is the number regulated buyers actually need.
- Monthly minimums of $49 and $99 are low but real, so a product with seasonal signup patterns pays in quiet months.
- Automated decision quality varies sharply by document type and issuing country, so a strong global average conceals weak performance in specific markets you may depend on.
- Standard data retention is short and extending it to two years is a $0.30 per verification add-on, which matters because most financial regulators require records for five years or more.
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Veriff
$0.8/verification- Essential$0.8/verification
- Fully automated decisions
- $49 per month minimum
- Documents from 230+ countries
- Plus$1.39/verification
- Hybrid automation with human review
- $99 per month minimum
- Enhanced fraud prevention for regulated industries
- Enterprise$undefined/year
- Volume pricing negotiated
- Dedicated support and custom SLAs
- Custom data retention and residency terms
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 Veriff if
- You need document verification.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android, API.
- You also want biometric liveness.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Veriff better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Veriff at $0.8/verification, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Veriff?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and $0.8/verification for Veriff.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Veriff run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Veriff runs on Web, iOS, Android, API.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Veriff starts at $0.8/verification.
- 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 Veriff is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Veriff cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Veriff covers Document verification, Biometric liveness, Hybrid review, Screening add-ons.
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.
Veriff: What does a verification actually cost?
$0.80 on Essential or $1.39 on Plus, before add-ons. Sanctions and PEP screening adds $0.64 and ongoing monitoring $0.09 per verification.
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.
Veriff: Are failed attempts charged?
Sessions are charged, so retries by the same user generally cost you again. Ask for the exact billing definition of a session before signing.
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.
Veriff: How long is data retained?
The default retention period is short and two-year extended retention is a paid add-on at $0.30 per verification, which is worth checking against your regulatory record-keeping obligations.
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 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 iDenfy
- OWASP ZAP vs Trulioo
- OWASP ZAP vs Yoti
- OWASP ZAP vs IDnow
- OWASP ZAP vs Fenergo
- OWASP ZAP vs Shufti Pro
- OWASP ZAP vs Sumsub
- OWASP ZAP vs Jumio
- OWASP ZAP vs Socure
- OWASP ZAP vs Signicat
- OWASP ZAP vs Quantexa
- OWASP ZAP vs Osano
- OWASP ZAP vs Beyond Identity
- OWASP ZAP vs BeyondTrust
- OWASP ZAP vs Bitdefender VPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Check Point Software
- OWASP ZAP vs Cybereason Defense Platform
- Veriff vs 1Password
- Veriff vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Veriff vs Norton 360
- Veriff vs LastPass
- Veriff vs Bitwarden
- Veriff vs Burp Suite
- Veriff vs Metasploit
- Veriff vs Wireshark
- Veriff vs authentik
- Veriff vs Authelia
- Veriff vs Infisical
- Veriff vs Trivy
- Veriff vs Feedzai
- Veriff vs Frontegg
- Veriff vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Veriff vs JumpCloud
- Veriff vs McAfee Total Protection
- Veriff vs iDenfy
- Veriff vs Trulioo
- Veriff vs Yoti
- Veriff vs IDnow
- Veriff vs Fenergo
- Veriff vs Shufti Pro
- Veriff vs Sumsub
- Veriff vs Jumio
- Veriff vs Socure
- Veriff vs Signicat
- Veriff vs Quantexa
- Veriff vs Osano
- Veriff vs Beyond Identity
- Veriff vs BeyondTrust
- Veriff vs Bitdefender VPN
- Veriff vs Check Point Software
- Veriff vs Cybereason Defense Platform