No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OWASP Zap vs Qwiet AI comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qwiet AI
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
38th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (39th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (20th)
 

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 Qwiet AI is 0.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OWASP Zap2.6%
Qwiet AI0.9%
Other96.5%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
SS
Senior Director of Engineering - Information Security at Apna
Effectively in identify and fix bugs early in the development lifecycle
When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Previously, security professionals had to spend a lot of time and effort running around, asking people to fix issues in their products, architectures, code, and even networks. With ShiftLeft, everything becomes robust and secure from within. Instead of relying on external measures like Web Application Firewalls (WAF) that are applied from the outside in, ShiftLeft takes a proactive approach. It helps prevent issues from arising in the first place, making it much easier for both security teams and developers. It's also cost-effective because you don't have to constantly go back, make changes to the code, and then push it again. Writing secure code from the start ensures that there are no vulnerabilities when it goes live. So, I would say the main features of ShiftLeft are its cost-effectiveness and ease of adaptability or use.

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 the spidering because, being a security person, it is very important for me to know each and every section of that application, so we cannot afford to miss any single web page or any single link on a particular website."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"The HUD, Heads Up Display, is a good feature; it provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"The solution has tightened our security and that of our clients who depend on it."
"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."
"When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness."
 

Cons

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"We get too many false positives and that should definitely be improved."
"Without any support, we are in a black hole sometimes."
"The product reporting could be improved."
"There are too many false positives."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"It's possibly just a limitation of the product itself but sometimes it won't scan a particular website so you have to manually go in and make some configuration changes."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"Having support from senior management is crucial in making it mandatory for teams to collaborate with the security team throughout the development process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"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 solution’s pricing is high."
"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."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
10%
University
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
14%
Retailer
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise22
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 ...
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.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
ShiftLeft
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.