Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs WarpBuild

OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes

WarpBuild
Developer Tools
2x faster, 50% cheaper GitHub Actions runners
- From
- On request
- Free plan
- No
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.; WarpBuild per-minute pricing requires tracking usage to estimate monthly costs
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, WarpBuild covers Optimized runner infrastructure.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and WarpBuild actually diverge.
| Attribute | OWASP ZAP | WarpBuild |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | Free | On request |
| Pricing model | free | Usage-based per minute, varies by runner configuration |
| Free tier | Yes | No |
| Platforms | Desktop, Cli, Api | GitHub Actions, Linux, Windows, macOS, Cloud |
| Category | Cybersecurity | Developer Tools |
| Founded | 2001 | Unknown |
Identical on both: 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 WarpBuild
- Optimized runner infrastructure
- Intelligent caching
- Incremental builds
- Multi-architecture support
- Unlimited concurrency
- Autoscaling
- BYOC support
- Docker builders
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 WarpBuild
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot WarpBuild
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot WarpBuild
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot WarpBuild
WarpBuild
- Accelerating CI builds for teams with high test volumesnot OWASP ZAP
- Running tests generated by AI coding assistants efficientlynot OWASP ZAP
- Reducing GitHub Actions costs by 50% or morenot OWASP ZAP
- Supporting teams that need ARM64 architecture runnersnot 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.
WarpBuild
- Per-minute pricing requires tracking usage to estimate monthly costs
- Large configuration runners (32 vCPU) expensive at $0.064/min
- macOS M4 Pro 12-core at $0.16/min is highest-cost option
- BYOC option requires cloud setup by customer
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
WarpBuild
On request- Linux x86-64 (2vCPU, 8GB)$0.004/minute
- 2 vCPU
- 8 GB RAM
- Standard performance
- Linux x86-64 (4vCPU, 16GB)$0.008/minute
- 4 vCPU
- 16 GB RAM
- Increased performance
- Linux x86-64 (8vCPU, 32GB)$0.016/minute
- 8 vCPU
- 32 GB RAM
- High performance
- Linux x86-64 (16vCPU, 64GB)$0.032/minute
- 16 vCPU
- 64 GB RAM
- Enterprise performance
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 WarpBuild if
- You need optimized runner infrastructure.
- You work on GitHub Actions, Linux, Windows, macOS, Cloud.
- You also want intelligent caching.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or WarpBuild better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and WarpBuild at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or WarpBuild?
- OWASP ZAP has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for OWASP ZAP and On request for WarpBuild.
- Does OWASP ZAP or WarpBuild run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. WarpBuild runs on GitHub Actions, Linux, Windows, macOS, Cloud.
- Can I use OWASP ZAP for free?
- Yes. OWASP ZAP has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. WarpBuild 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 WarpBuild is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that WarpBuild cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. WarpBuild covers Optimized runner infrastructure, Intelligent caching, Incremental builds, Multi-architecture support.
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.
WarpBuild: How much cheaper is WarpBuild compared to GitHub Actions?
WarpBuild offers approximately 50% cost savings compared to GitHub-hosted runners. For example, Linux x86-64 2vCPU/8GB costs $0.004/min with WarpBuild vs $0.008/min with GitHub Actions.
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.
WarpBuild: What is BYOC and how does it differ from managed runners?
BYOC (Bring Your Own Cloud) allows customers to run WarpBuild on their own cloud infrastructure at $0.002/min. Managed runners use WarpBuild's cloud infrastructure. BYOC provides lower costs but requires customer setup.
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.
WarpBuild: Does WarpBuild support ARM64 runners?
Yes, WarpBuild offers ARM64 runners at lower costs than x86-64. Linux ARM64 starts at $0.003/min for 2vCPU/8GB configuration.
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 Blacksmith
- OWASP ZAP vs Depot
- OWASP ZAP vs Namespace
- OWASP ZAP vs Earthly
- OWASP ZAP vs Nx Cloud
- OWASP ZAP vs Garden
- OWASP ZAP vs ConfigCat
- OWASP ZAP vs Dagger
- OWASP ZAP vs Nix
- OWASP ZAP vs Rust
- OWASP ZAP vs Ansible
- OWASP ZAP vs Nixpacks
- OWASP ZAP vs PhpStorm
- OWASP ZAP vs Pieces for Developers
- OWASP ZAP vs RAD Studio
- OWASP ZAP vs Refact
- OWASP ZAP vs Restate
- OWASP ZAP vs RubyMine
- WarpBuild vs 1Password
- WarpBuild vs Bitdefender Total Security
- WarpBuild vs Norton 360
- WarpBuild vs LastPass
- WarpBuild vs Bitwarden
- WarpBuild vs Burp Suite
- WarpBuild vs Metasploit
- WarpBuild vs Wireshark
- WarpBuild vs authentik
- WarpBuild vs Authelia
- WarpBuild vs Infisical
- WarpBuild vs Trivy
- WarpBuild vs Feedzai
- WarpBuild vs Frontegg
- WarpBuild vs HashiCorp Boundary
- WarpBuild vs JumpCloud
- WarpBuild vs McAfee Total Protection
- WarpBuild vs Blacksmith
- WarpBuild vs Depot
- WarpBuild vs Namespace
- WarpBuild vs Earthly
- WarpBuild vs Nx Cloud
- WarpBuild vs Garden
- WarpBuild vs ConfigCat
- WarpBuild vs Dagger
- WarpBuild vs Nix
- WarpBuild vs Rust
- WarpBuild vs Ansible
- WarpBuild vs Nixpacks
- WarpBuild vs PhpStorm
- WarpBuild vs Pieces for Developers
- WarpBuild vs RAD Studio
- WarpBuild vs Refact
- WarpBuild vs Restate
- WarpBuild vs RubyMine
