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

OWASP Zap vs Qwiet AI comparison

 

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)
16th
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)
37th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (38th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qwiet AI is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OWASP Zap2.7%
Qwiet AI0.9%
Other96.4%
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

"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"The solution is very easy to use, the initial setup is straightforward, it is free due to the fact that it is open-source, the stability is very good, and the product has a strong community surrounding it to help with issues and troubleshooting."
"​It has improved my organization with faster security tests.​"
"The solution enables a person to add the certificate and check the queries, to see if there are any that are undefined, so a person can have a list of the types of queries and can trace them."
"When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness."
 

Cons

"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"The automatic scans need improvement. The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"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."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"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."
"This solution is open source and free."
"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 open source, and we can scan freely."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"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.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

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

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: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.