OWASP Zap vs Ox Security comparison

Why PeerSpot?

OWASP and Ox Security are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OWASP is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.0, while Ox Security is ranked #24 with an average rating of 8.5. OWASP holds a 2.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to Ox Security’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OWASP users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Ox Security users who would recommend it.

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

9,677 Views
9,000 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Ox Security

Read 2 Ox Security reviews

3,515 Views
2,074 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Ox Security

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Ox Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed OWASP Zap vs. Ox Security Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. Ox Security

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 913,683 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

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

15th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ox Security

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

24th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (14th), Software Supply Chain Security (9th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (10th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.6%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ox Security is 1.2%, up from 0.8% 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	2.6%
Ox Security	1.2%
Other	96.2%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

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

Yossi Shmulevitch

Owner at SoftContact

Experience has raised visibility into vulnerabilities but still demands deeper customization options

Regarding threat detection capability, I think that Ox Security is not used for that matter. The CISO mainly focuses on dev sec ops rather than runtime security or real-time security. I figure that the most important metrics for the analytics feature are the critical issues dashboard, which helps understand whether there is a leak of a secret or a very critical vulnerability that is not being used. Another important aspect is the integration with other products like JFrog and X-ray, which shows not all the findings but mostly focuses on what Ox Security considers the most important issues. For instance, we found some issues that were flagged by JFrog, but Ox Security dismissed them, leading to discussions about whether those issues are real, as there are often false positives in the security world, as well as considerations about the attack surface for each vulnerability and whether these are truly critical issues or not. I work extensively with JFrog X-ray, which is my major tool for another customer. I believe that JFrog is more pinpointing, and I have some integration with JFrog with the build system, the CI/CD and X-ray vulnerabilities meter. It's quite useful, but I think that they serve different purposes; JFrog comes mostly from the artifact management side and less from security. Ox Security is mostly focused on the DevSecOps and areas that cannot be detected. In terms of vulnerability management, Ox Security has strong integration, but sometimes there are vulnerabilities that are disputed or dismissed, which creates an interesting intersection between the two products. From what I talked about with the DevOps team, deployment is quite straightforward. My overall review rating for Ox Security is zero.

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

"Zap is an open-source and sophisticated product that not only saves us money but also provides us with a good amount of information."

"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."

"OWASP is definitely in the top three as a tool that we would probably recommend to our team, as a frequent users' tool, however, I don't believe we have any kind of a formal relationship with the company."

"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 ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."

"The product has improved our application security engagement, helps with our in-house review so we sometimes don't need an external third-party tester, and once we get it from OWASP Zap, we have an idea of the inherent vulnerabilities in the application, which is a plus to save cost and improve our application accuracy practice."

"We use the solution for security testing."

More OWASP Zap pros

"As a service provider, I believe the biggest advantage of Ox Security is its simplicity and the clarity of the issues, along with a very good dashboard showing the state of the company."

"Ox Security has positively impacted my organization by helping to reduce the amount of noise we received from vulnerabilities because of the prioritization scoring it has and all of the context it provides."

Cons

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"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."

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

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

"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."

"While the solution can scale to a certain extent, it cannot scale a lot."

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

More OWASP Zap cons

"My overall review rating for Ox Security is zero."

"The main pain point I have with Ox Security as a tool is the user interface, which can feel quite complex when navigating large datasets."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"The tool is open-source."

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

"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."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"The tool is open source."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

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

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

Information not available

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

913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

10%

University

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Computer Software Company

10%

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	22

No data available

Questions from the Community

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 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

What needs improvement with OWASP Zap?

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 Postm...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Ox Security?

I'm not sure about flexibility because I didn't try it, so I can't comment on that, but as far as I understand, most of Ox Security is not personalized. I think that most of the tool is quite deter...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Ox Security?

I worked with Ox Security as a service provider, not as a representative, but as a user. I use it in my employee capacity, providing services to companies in Israel, and one of them is an insurance...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Ox Security?

See all answers

Comparisons

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 5% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Apiiro vs Ox Security

Compared 11% of the time

Snyk vs Ox Security

Compared 10% of the time

Jit.io vs Ox Security

Compared 9% of the time

Oxeye vs Ox Security

Compared 9% of the time

Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs Ox Security

Compared 6% of the time

More Ox Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

September 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)

September 2026

Download Ox Security product report

Overview

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

OX rewires your security program for the Mythos Age: the era where AI writes the code, chains the exploits, and moves faster than human-built defenses can track.

OX is an AI Native Application Protection Platform (AINAPP) unifying security from Prompt to Runtime. It moves your control surface upstream to the prompt, preventing and governing risk at the source instead of chasing it downstream in runtime.

OX Mind and OX AI Context Lake connect AI-user governance, code security, cloud and runtime enforcement, and agentic pentesting into one system that shares context across the entire Agentic Development Lifecycle (ADLC), replacing fragmented point tools with a single platform.

The platform runs on four connected pillars:

OX VibeSec: Prevents unsafe AI decisions at the point of creation and governs every AI user in the organization, not just developers using coding assistants. Full visibility into which agents, MCPs, skills, and packages run, with what permissions, against what data.
OX Code: Separates exploitable risk from theoretical noise using evidence from your actual deployment, threat model, and threat intelligence.
OX Cloud: Prevents misconfigurations and enforces runtime boundaries that code and agents cannot cross, watching what actually runs in production.
OX Agentic Pentester: Continuously simulates adversarial agent behavior to prove exploit paths back to their exact source, feeding what it finds back into OX VibeSec to sharpen governance.

OX connects to your existing stack and traces every finding back to its origin (the prompt, the AI user, or the endpoint that created it), then fixes issues at the source rather than flagging them after the fact.

For new deployments, OX consolidates governance, code security, cloud enforcement, and pentesting into one platform. For existing stacks, OX layers governance on top and makes current tools smarter through continuous learning, so the same issue never gets created twice.

Visit https://ox.security for more information.

Ox Security

Sample Customers

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

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. Ox Security

September 2026

Free Report: OWASP Zap vs. Ox Security

Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. Ox Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OWASP Zap vs. Ox Security 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.