Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Kiuwan vs OWASP Zap comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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)
25th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (29th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
10th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 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 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OWASP Zap3.9%
Kiuwan1.1%
Other95.0%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Anshul Anshul - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Manager at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Efficient and accurate scanning, and detailed analysis
In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further. Another issue I've encountered is that Kiuwan only looks at the version of components and doesn't take into account any workaround fixes that have been implemented at the code level. This can result in false positives being reported. Additionally, these issues are in the "insights" tab and not in the code base security aspect. Lastly, when muting findings that are false positives, there should be an option to see the only available at the code level rather than at the organization level because it can lead to missing vulnerabilities if they are muted at the org level. An additional feature that would be helpful is the ability to easily download reports from Kiuwan. Specifically, in the "insights" tab, we have been encountering an error when trying to download the PDF report. We are able to download the code-based security report, but not the insights report. This has been an ongoing issue for the past couple of months and would be beneficial if it could be resolved. My main recommendation would be to address the issues with downloading reports that we have been experiencing. Additionally, it would be helpful if Kiuwan could support a wider range of programming languages, as there are currently some that are not compatible with the tool. If the code of a particular application falls under the category which is not compatible with Kiuwan, then it will not be able to scan it.
Prasant Pokarnaa - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies
Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed
OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

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 of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"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."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"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."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"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."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"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."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"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."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"The port scanner is a little too slow.​"
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"Check with your account manager."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"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."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"The tool is open-source."
"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."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
University
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Consumer Goods Company
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
 

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 ...
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...
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.