Kiuwan vs OWASP Zap comparison

Kiuwan and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Kiuwan is ranked #26, while OWASP is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.2. Kiuwan holds a 1.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.4% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of Kiuwan users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Kiuwan

Read 23 Kiuwan reviews

2,214 Views
1,683 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,440 Views
6,845 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Kiuwan

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

OWASP Zap and Kiuwan are key players in the application security testing arena. User feedback points to OWASP Zap as more favored for its pricing and support, while Kiuwan gains recognition for its comprehensive feature set, making it appealing despite its higher cost.

Features: OWASP Zap is known for effectively identifying security vulnerabilities, efficient scanning, and immediate vulnerability testing. Kiuwan is praised for its broad feature set, including advanced code analysis and integration capabilities, making it versatile for different use cases.

Room for Improvement: OWASP Zap users request improvements in performance speed and reporting tools. Kiuwan users seek more streamlined integrations and better documentation. Both sets of users desire enhanced usability features, with Kiuwan users seeking easier navigation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OWASP Zap is noted for straightforward deployment, though some users wish for more responsive customer service. Kiuwan provides detailed implementation support, but deployment can be challenging for some organizations.

Pricing and ROI: OWASP Zap is valued for its cost-effectiveness. Kiuwan, although more expensive, offers clear ROI through comprehensive functionality, appealing to those who prioritize an extensive suite of security tools despite higher costs.

To learn more, read our detailed Kiuwan vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan vs. OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 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

Kiuwan

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

26th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (28th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

9th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.4%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OWASP Zap	3.4%
Kiuwan	1.1%
Other	95.5%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala

CyberRisk Solution Advisor at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees

Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement

Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.

Read full review

Nithin-K

Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking.

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

"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."

"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."

"We have been using this solution for one and a half years."

"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."

"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."

"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."

"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."

"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."

More Kiuwan pros

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"This is a very mature tool; it is capable of facilitating the work of many security experts, and I highly recommend it for beginners and advanced users when some other tools fail to catch traffic."

"The scalability of this product is very good."

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

"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, it's very difficult."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."

"Different languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."

"More languages and frameworks would enhance this tool."

"I would like to see additional languages supported."

"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."

"The configuration hasn't been that good."

"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."

"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."

More Kiuwan cons

"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."

"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."

"There isn't too much information about it online."

"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."

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

"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."

"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."

"OWASP Zap could benefit from a noise cancellation feature like that of Burp Suite Professional, where AI helps reduce certain non-critical findings."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."

"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."

"Check with your account manager."

"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."

"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."

"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"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."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

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

"The tool is open-source."

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

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

University

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Performing Arts

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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 vs Kiuwan

Compared 25% of the time

Veracode vs Kiuwan

Compared 9% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Kiuwan

Compared 9% of the time

GitHub vs Kiuwan

Compared 7% of the time

Snyk vs Kiuwan

Compared 6% of the time

More Kiuwan Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 13% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan

March 2026

Download Kiuwan product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Overview

Software analytics technology with a breadth of third party integrations that takes into account the wealth of applications your teams are currently using.

We facilitate and encourage work between unlocalized teams. We understand the complexity of working on multi technology environments, constantly striving to increase the number of programming languages and technologies we support.

Kiuwan

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

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial

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

Kiuwan vs. OWASP Zap

March 2026

Free Report: Kiuwan vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Kiuwan 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.