Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Wireshark
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Wireshark
Cybersecurity
The world's foremost network protocol analyzer
- 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.; Wireshark free and open source under the GNU GPL; downloadable without paying any license fee, no commercial tier
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Wireshark covers Deep packet inspection.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Wireshark actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (free), free tier (Yes), 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 Wireshark
- Deep packet inspection
- Live capture
- Offline analysis
- 3000+ protocol support
- Rich display filters
- VoIP analysis
- Decryption support
- Scripting with Lua
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 Wireshark
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Wireshark
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Wireshark
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Wireshark
Wireshark
- Network Securitynot OWASP ZAP
- Packet Analysisnot OWASP ZAP
- Open Sourcenot 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.
Wireshark
- Free and open source under the GNU GPL; downloadable without paying any license fee, no commercial tier
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Wireshark
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Deep inspection
- Live capture
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 Wireshark if
- You need deep packet inspection.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Desktop, Cli.
- You also want live capture.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Wireshark better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Wireshark at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Wireshark?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Wireshark at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Wireshark run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Wireshark runs on Desktop, Cli.
- 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 Wireshark is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Wireshark cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Wireshark covers Deep packet inspection, Live capture, Offline analysis, 3000+ protocol 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.
Wireshark: Is there a cost to download and use Wireshark?
No, Wireshark is completely free. It's distributed under the GNU General Public License version 2, making it "free software" with no demo limitations. The full version is available at no cost.
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.
Wireshark: What support options are available for Wireshark users?
Wireshark offers multiple support channels including mailing lists, an active Discord community, the Ask Wireshark Q&A platform, comprehensive documentation, a user guide, and developer resources for those needing technical assistance.
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.
Wireshark: Are there different pricing tiers or subscription levels?
Wireshark does not offer pricing tiers or subscriptions. There is one free version available to all users regardless of use case, personal, professional, or organizational.
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 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 Syft
- OWASP ZAP vs Cosign
- OWASP ZAP vs HashiCorp Vault
- OWASP ZAP vs Semgrep
- OWASP ZAP vs Fenergo
- OWASP ZAP vs Google Authenticator
- OWASP ZAP vs Hanwha Vision
- OWASP ZAP vs Idira
- OWASP ZAP vs IVPN
- OWASP ZAP vs Grype
- Wireshark vs 1Password
- Wireshark vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Wireshark vs Norton 360
- Wireshark vs LastPass
- Wireshark vs Bitwarden
- Wireshark vs Burp Suite
- Wireshark vs Metasploit
- Wireshark vs authentik
- Wireshark vs Authelia
- Wireshark vs Infisical
- Wireshark vs Trivy
- Wireshark vs Feedzai
- Wireshark vs Frontegg
- Wireshark vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Wireshark vs JumpCloud
- Wireshark vs McAfee Total Protection
- Wireshark vs Syft
- Wireshark vs Cosign
- Wireshark vs HashiCorp Vault
- Wireshark vs Semgrep
- Wireshark vs Fenergo
- Wireshark vs Google Authenticator
- Wireshark vs Hanwha Vision
- Wireshark vs Idira
- Wireshark vs IVPN
- Wireshark vs Grype