Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Warp
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
Warp
Developer Tools
The terminal reimagined with AI and modern features
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
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.; Warp limited cloud agents access on free tier
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Warp 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 Warp
Nothing recorded that OWASP ZAP does not also cover.
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 Warp
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Warp
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Warp
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Warp
Warp
- Modern terminal environment for developersnot OWASP ZAP
- AI-assisted command execution with multiple LLM providersnot OWASP ZAP
- Multi-agent orchestration and codebase indexingnot OWASP ZAP
- Agentic development workflowsnot 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.
Warp
- Limited cloud agents access on free tier
- Limited collaboration features on free tier
- Limited cloud conversation storage on free tier
- IME input not properly handled on macOS (discarded during command or Agent output)
- Terminal zoom functionality does not properly resize grid in TUI applications, causing misaligned rendering
- Multi-language (i18n) support missing as of documentation
- Requires macOS 10.14 or later (excludes older Mac hardware)
- Requires Windows 10 build 1903 or later (excludes pre-build 1903 systems)
- Linux requires glibc 2.31 or higher and GPU support (OpenGL ES 3.0+ or Vulkan) for rendering
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Warp
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Warp review.
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 Warp better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Warp at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Warp?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Warp at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Warp run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Warp runs on macOS, Windows, 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 Warp is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Warp cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider.
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.
Warp: What is the pricing model?
Usage-based, priced per agent run. Qualifying orgs get $10k of factory usage during closed early access.
SourceOWASP 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.
Warp: Where does our data live?
Data lives wherever you choose - Warp's cloud, or fully self-hosted inside your own VPC, under your existing retention and compliance rules.
SourceOWASP 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.
Warp: What is included in the free trial?
Get up to $10,000 in free factory usage during early access.
SourceOWASP 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 Visual Studio Code
- OWASP ZAP vs ESLint
- OWASP ZAP vs pnpm
- OWASP ZAP vs Turborepo
- OWASP ZAP vs Helix
- OWASP ZAP vs Claude Code
- OWASP ZAP vs Cody
- OWASP ZAP vs Fig
- OWASP ZAP vs Sweep
- OWASP ZAP vs GitHub Copilot
- OWASP ZAP vs Penpot
- OWASP ZAP vs Rust
- OWASP ZAP vs Ona (formerly Gitpod)
- OWASP ZAP vs GNU Emacs
- OWASP ZAP vs Keil MDK
- OWASP ZAP vs Vite
- OWASP ZAP vs Bazel
- OWASP ZAP vs Daytona
- Warp vs 1Password
- Warp vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Warp vs Norton 360
- Warp vs LastPass
- Warp vs Bitwarden
- Warp vs Burp Suite
- Warp vs Metasploit
- Warp vs Wireshark
- Warp vs authentik
- Warp vs Authelia
- Warp vs Infisical
- Warp vs Trivy
- Warp vs Feedzai
- Warp vs Frontegg
- Warp vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Warp vs JumpCloud
- Warp vs McAfee Total Protection
- Warp vs Visual Studio Code
- Warp vs ESLint
- Warp vs pnpm
- Warp vs Turborepo
- Warp vs Helix
- Warp vs Claude Code
- Warp vs Cody
- Warp vs Fig
- Warp vs Sweep
- Warp vs GitHub Copilot
- Warp vs Penpot
- Warp vs Rust
- Warp vs Ona (formerly Gitpod)
- Warp vs GNU Emacs
- Warp vs Keil MDK
- Warp vs Vite
- Warp vs Bazel
- Warp vs Daytona