GitGuardian Platform vs OWASP Zap comparison

GitGuardian and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. GitGuardian is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.7, while OWASP is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.0. GitGuardian holds a 0.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 4.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of GitGuardian users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

GitGuardian Platform

Read 32 GitGuardian Platform reviews

4,023 Views
1,971 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,982 Views
8,174 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

GitGuardian Platform

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 28, 2025

OWASP Zap and GitGuardian Platform are competing products in the security domain. GitGuardian Platform has a superior feature set, offering stronger capabilities, although OWASP Zap excels in pricing and support.

Features: OWASP Zap includes an intercepting proxy, plug and hack support, and extensive automated scanning capabilities. GitGuardian Platform effectively detects hardcoded secrets, ensures the security of software development processes, and offers robust monitoring tools.

Room for Improvement: OWASP Zap could enhance its user interface for greater ease of navigation, improve integration with third-party tools, and offer more tailored customer support. GitGuardian Platform may benefit from reducing its false positive rate, refining its alert notification system, and expanding its support for a wider range of programming languages.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OWASP Zap is straightforward to deploy, supported by a strong community of users, and is known for its ease of use. GitGuardian Platform provides a structured deployment path coupled with dedicated customer service, offering guided setup processes and high-level support that enhance the user experience.

Pricing and ROI: OWASP Zap is an open-source tool, minimizing costs and delivering a high ROI for budget-sensitive teams. GitGuardian Platform involves higher initial expenditures, but its comprehensive feature set and customer support justify the price, offering a solid ROI for those requiring resource-intensive security solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

GitGuardian Platform

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

4th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (8th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (6th), Software Supply Chain Security (4th), DevSecOps (3rd), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (4th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

11th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.7%, up from 4.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Ney Roman

DevOps Engineer at Deuna App

Facilitates efficient secret management and improves development processes

Regarding the exceptions in GitGuardian Platform, we know that within the platform we have a way to accept a path or a directory from a repository, but it is not that visible at the very beginning. You have to figure out where to search for it, and once you have it, it is really good, but it is not that visible at the beginning. This should be made more exposed. The documentation could be better because it was not that comprehensively documented. When we started working with GitGuardian Platform, it was difficult to find some specific use cases, and we were not aware of that. It might have improved now, but at that time, it was not something we would recommend.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most valuable feature is its ability to automate both downloading the repository and generating a Software Bill of Materials directly from it."

"It's fantastic. We have checked a couple of other vendors and seen their results, which are quite inferior to the amount of detail that the GitGuardian Platform provides. With instantaneous notifications connected to our Slack platform, it allows us to deal quickly with incidents."

"It actually creates an incident ticket for us. We can now go end-to-end after a secret has been identified, to track down who owns the repository and who is responsible for cleaning it up."

"The newest addition that we appreciate about GitGuardian Platform is the ability to create a custom detector, which we built and worked with the team, and that works very effectively."

"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."

"The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."

"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."

"GitGuardian has pretty broad detection capabilities. It covers all of the types of secrets that we've been interested in... [Yet] The "detector" concept, which identifies particular categories or types of secrets, allows an organization to tweak and tailor the configuration for things that are specific to its environment. This is highly useful if you're particularly worried about a certain type of secret and it can help focus attention, as part of early remediation efforts."

More GitGuardian Platform pros

"OWASP Zap is a good tool, one of my favorites for a long time, and I would recommend it."

"I consider OWASP Zap to be the most effective solution overall; being open source allows integration with other systems via OWASP Zap APIs."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."

"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The analytics in GitGuardian Platform have a significant opportunity to better reflect the value provided to security teams and demonstrate actual activity occurring. While the self-healing capability and proactive developer actions are important features, the analytics do not provide information around this activity."

"I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers."

"The documentation could be improved because when we started working with GitGuardian, it was difficult to find specific use cases."

"Automated Jira tickets would be fantastic. At the moment, I believe we have to go in and click to create a Jira ticket. It would be nice to automate."

"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."

"Other solutions have a live chat feature that provides instant results. Waiting for an agent to reply to an email is less ideal than an instant conversation with a support employee. That's a complaint so minor I almost hesitate to mention it."

"GitGuardian's hook and dashboard scanners are the two entities. They should work together as one. We've seen several discrepancies where the hook is not being flagged on the dashboard. I still think they need to do some fine-tuning around that. We don't want to waste time."

"If a developer commits code into their repo, it generates an alert. The alert comes into Slack, but by the time someone looks at it through the Slack alerting channel, the developer might have gone and already fixed or closed the issue. There's no sort of feedback loop to come back into the notification channel to show that it's been addressed."

More GitGuardian Platform cons

"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."

"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."

"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

"The port scanner is a little too slow."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"With GitGuardian, we didn't need any middlemen."

"GitGuardian is on the pricier side."

"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."

"It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are very happy with the value we get."

"It's not cheap, but it's not crazy expensive either."

"I am only aware of the base price. I do not know what happened with our purchasing team in discussions with GitGuardian. I was not privy to the overall contract, but in terms of the base MSRP price, I found it reasonable."

"The internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."

"It's a little bit expensive."

More GitGuardian Platform pricing and cost advice

"The tool is open-source."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"The tool is open source."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"This solution is open source and free."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Government

18%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives. We utilize the automated playbooks from GitGuardian Platform, and we are enhancing them. We will pr...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 16% of the time

Snyk vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 14% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 12% of the time

SafeGuard Cyber Security vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 11% of the time

Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 10% of the time

More GitGuardian Platform Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 19% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

GitGuardian Platform

August 2025

Download GitGuardian Platform product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

August 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring

No data available

Overview

GitGuardian is an advanced secrets security platform that strengthens Non-Human Identity security and ensures compliance with industry standards by detecting and managing secrets in development environments.

GitGuardian integrates Secrets Security and Secrets Observability, facilitating the detection of compromised secrets and managing legitimate secrets' lifecycle. Supporting over 450 types of secrets, the platform offers public monitoring for leaked data and employs honeytokens as an added defense. Trusted by over 600,000 developers, organizations such as Snowflake and ING rely on GitGuardian for robust secrets protection.

What features define GitGuardian?

Internal Monitoring: Tracks confidential data like IDs and tokens.
Dev in the Loop: Rapid alerts for leaks.
Detection Capabilities: High accuracy with a low false-positive rate.
Integrations: Supports seamless integration with multiple platforms.
Customized Detectors: Offers tailored security solutions.
Multi-Vault Support: Facilitates efficient issue management.

What are the key benefits when evaluating GitGuardian?

Comprehensive Detection: Identifies AWS keys and other hardcoded secrets.
Efficient Remediation: Swiftly resolves issues.
Improved Security: Prevents accidental leaks of sensitive data.
Seamless Integration: Compatible with platforms like GitHub and Azure DevOps.

In sectors like healthcare and telecommunications, GitGuardian is implemented for detecting and managing the exposure of sensitive information in code repositories. Teams benefit from its ability to integrate with platforms such as GitHub, allowing for immediate alerts and efficient remediation of security risks, enhancing application security by safeguarding operational environments.

GitGuardian

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by over 600 thousand developers and leading companies, including Snowflake, Orange, Iress, Mirantis, Maven Wave, ING, BASF, and Bouygues Telecom.

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap

July 2025

Free Report: GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.