Cybersecurity · head to head
OWASP ZAP vs Zipkin
OWASP ZAP
Cybersecurity
Free, open-source web application scanner and intercepting proxy, now governed by the Software Security Project.
- 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.; Zipkin less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
- They diverge on capability: OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Zipkin covers Trace collection and search.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OWASP ZAP and Zipkin 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 Zipkin
- Trace collection and search
- Dependency diagram
- Simple deployment
- Pluggable storage
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 Zipkin
- Manual penetration testing that needs an intercepting proxy, request replay and fuzzing without a paid licence per testernot Zipkin
- Teaching developers what an attack against their own endpoint looks like, using a tool they can install themselvesnot Zipkin
- Pre-release regression scanning of an internal application that would never justify a commercial DAST subscriptionnot Zipkin
Zipkin
- Adding distributed tracing quickly without standing up heavy infrastructurenot OWASP ZAP
- Java and Spring Boot estates, where instrumentation support is long-establishednot OWASP ZAP
- Small deployments where Jaeger is more than the problem requiresnot 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.
Zipkin
- Less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
- Fewer features: sampling, storage options and UI are all more limited
- The interface is dated and slower to work with on large trace volumes
- Tracing alone still leaves metrics and logs in separate tools during an incident
Pricing, plan by plan
OWASP ZAP
Free- Free & Open SourceFree
- Full functionality
- Active & passive scanning
- Spider
Zipkin
Free- ZipkinFree
- Full functionality
- No usage limits
- Community support
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 Zipkin if
- You need trace collection and search.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
- You also want dependency diagram.
Questions people ask
- Is OWASP ZAP or Zipkin better?
- Neither clearly leads. OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Zipkin at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, OWASP ZAP or Zipkin?
- OWASP ZAP starts at Free and Zipkin at Free.
- Does OWASP ZAP or Zipkin run on more platforms?
- OWASP ZAP runs on Desktop, Cli, Api. Zipkin runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
- 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 Zipkin is typically brought in for.
- What can OWASP ZAP do that Zipkin cannot?
- OWASP ZAP covers Intercepting proxy, Passive scanner, Active scanner, AJAX spider. Zipkin covers Trace collection and search, Dependency diagram, Simple deployment, Pluggable storage.
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.
Zipkin: Is Zipkin free?
Yes, open source with no licence fee.
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.
Zipkin: Zipkin or Jaeger?
Jaeger has more momentum, more features and CNCF backing. Zipkin is lighter and quicker to stand up, and remains well supported in the Java and Spring ecosystem.
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.
Zipkin: Does Zipkin work with OpenTelemetry?
Yes. OpenTelemetry can export to Zipkin, which is now the usual way to instrument for it.
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 Jaeger
- OWASP ZAP vs Grafana Cloud
- OWASP ZAP vs VictoriaMetrics
- OWASP ZAP vs Deno Deploy
- OWASP ZAP vs Anyscale
- OWASP ZAP vs Cerebrium
- OWASP ZAP vs Go
- OWASP ZAP vs Orca Security
- OWASP ZAP vs Heroku
- OWASP ZAP vs Vault
- OWASP ZAP vs Beam Cloud
- OWASP ZAP vs Caddy
- OWASP ZAP vs DeepInfra
- OWASP ZAP vs OpenTelemetry
- OWASP ZAP vs Thanos
- OWASP ZAP vs Linkerd
- OWASP ZAP vs Longhorn
- Zipkin vs 1Password
- Zipkin vs Bitdefender Total Security
- Zipkin vs Norton 360
- Zipkin vs LastPass
- Zipkin vs Bitwarden
- Zipkin vs Burp Suite
- Zipkin vs Metasploit
- Zipkin vs Wireshark
- Zipkin vs authentik
- Zipkin vs Authelia
- Zipkin vs Infisical
- Zipkin vs Trivy
- Zipkin vs Feedzai
- Zipkin vs Frontegg
- Zipkin vs HashiCorp Boundary
- Zipkin vs JumpCloud
- Zipkin vs McAfee Total Protection
- Zipkin vs Jaeger
- Zipkin vs Grafana Cloud
- Zipkin vs VictoriaMetrics
- Zipkin vs Deno Deploy
- Zipkin vs Anyscale
- Zipkin vs Cerebrium
- Zipkin vs Go
- Zipkin vs Orca Security
- Zipkin vs Heroku
- Zipkin vs Vault
- Zipkin vs Beam Cloud
- Zipkin vs Caddy
- Zipkin vs DeepInfra
- Zipkin vs OpenTelemetry
- Zipkin vs Thanos
- Zipkin vs Linkerd
- Zipkin vs Longhorn