Top 1 Alternative to OWASP ZAP for DAST Security

Introduction and Context

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) tools emerged as web applications became more interactive and complex, and organizations needed a way to find vulnerabilities from an external attacker’s point of view. OWASP Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) has been one of the most recognizable names in this space for over a decade. Originally launched as an open-source effort within the OWASP community, ZAP quickly won favor among security engineers, QA professionals, and developers because it was free, actively maintained, and practical for both manual exploration and automated scanning.

ZAP’s design centers around the Java runtime and an extensible architecture:

• A desktop UI for exploratory testing and learning

• A headless/daemon mode that fits CI pipelines

• Scriptable automation and a REST API

• Passive and active scanning engines

• Spiders, including an AJAX spider for modern web apps

• Add-ons via its marketplace to expand capability (e.g., API scanning, authentication helpers, and more)

Because it is open source under the Apache-2.0 license, ZAP became popular in teams that value transparency, customizability, and cost control. It’s well-established in the DAST niche and particularly useful for test automation in web and API contexts. Many teams run ZAP in containers as part of CI/CD, linting their web surfaces for common issues and catching regressions early.

However, as organizations scale, centralize security governance, or seek specific enterprise features, some begin to look beyond ZAP. These teams often want more built-in management, stronger policy enforcement, richer reporting, and dedicated vendor support. That is where commercial, enterprise-grade alternatives enter the discussion.

This guide covers the top single alternative to OWASP ZAP, clarifying where it excels, how it differs, and what to consider before switching or augmenting your current setup.

Overview: The Top 1 Alternative to OWASP ZAP

Here is the top 1 alternative for OWASP ZAP:

• Burp Suite (Enterprise)

Why Look for OWASP ZAP Alternatives?

OWASP ZAP remains a solid choice, especially for teams comfortable with open-source tooling and scripting. Still, there are common reasons organizations consider alternatives:

• Enterprise reporting and governance

• Scaling and fleet management

• Authentication complexity

• Consistent results and tuning

• Integration depth and support expectations

• Reporting for compliance and audit

Detailed Breakdown of the Top Alternative

Burp Suite (Enterprise)

What it is:

• Burp Suite (Enterprise) is a commercial DAST tool from PortSwigger, designed for automated scanning of web applications and APIs at scale. It builds on the proven Burp scanning engine used by security testers worldwide, adding enterprise scheduling, management, and centralized reporting.

Who built it:

• PortSwigger, the company behind the widely used Burp Suite platform. The Enterprise edition is tailored for teams that need automation and governance rather than purely manual testing workflows.

What makes it different:

• Burp Suite (Enterprise) focuses on automation across many applications, offering a management layer for scheduling scans, handling authenticated sessions, tracking results over time, and integrating with build systems and ticketing tools. It prioritizes ease of deployment at scale and centralized visibility.

Core strengths and capabilities:

• Scalable automated scanning

• Centralized management and reporting

• CI/CD and DevSecOps integrations

• Authentication support

• Policy and role-based access control

• Vendor support

How it compares to OWASP ZAP:

• Licensing and cost

• Scale and orchestration

• Usability and onboarding

• Extensibility and control

• Coverage areas

Standout benefits:

• For organizations that manage many applications and value a central security dashboard with governance, Burp Suite (Enterprise) reduces operational friction. Teams can standardize scanning, gain reliable reporting, and streamline remediation workflows without building a custom orchestration layer.

Potential drawbacks:

• Commercial licensing and per-scan or per-asset models require budget planning.

• It focuses on web/API DAST, similar to ZAP’s niche, so teams still may need complementary SAST/IAST/DAST-mobile tools for full coverage.

• Extensibility is different from open-source tooling; if your workflows rely on deep customization via scripting and community add-ons, factor that into your evaluation.

Best for:

• Teams requiring automation in this category, particularly those that need scalable, centrally managed scanning, enterprise reporting, and formal support.

Things to Consider Before Choosing an OWASP ZAP Alternative

Before you switch or augment your stack with a commercial DAST platform, clarify the following:

• Application portfolio and scope

• Technology stack and coverage

• API-first needs

• Authentication complexity

• Ease of setup and maintenance

• Execution speed and resource usage

• CI/CD integration depth

• Debugging and triage tools

• Reporting and compliance

• Community and vendor support

• Scalability and availability

• Cost and licensing

• Data security and deployment model

• Team skills and change management

Putting It All Together: ZAP or an Alternative?

OWASP ZAP remains one of the most approachable and flexible DAST tools for web and API security testing:

• Open-source under Apache-2.0

• Java-based and CI-friendly

• Strong community and add-on ecosystem

• Well-established in its niche and helpful for test automation

If your primary goals are to keep costs low, customize deeply, and integrate with your existing pipelines using scripts and containers, ZAP is a strong fit. You retain control over how scans run, how results are processed, and how you present findings to stakeholders.

However, if your organization is growing and you need built-in orchestration, standardized reporting, role-based access, and vendor-backed support, Burp Suite (Enterprise) is a compelling choice. It centralizes management, scales scanning without extensive custom code, and produces consistent, stakeholder-ready outputs. For many mid-size and large enterprises, those features streamline operations and reduce the overhead of maintaining a homegrown DAST platform.

Practical Scenarios

• Stay with ZAP when:

• Choose Burp Suite (Enterprise) when:

• Combine both when:

Tips for a Smooth Transition or Hybrid Approach

• Start with a pilot

• Define success metrics

• Standardize scan policies

• Embed into developer workflows

• Plan for authentication resilience

• Keep an eye on performance and cost

Conclusion

OWASP ZAP has earned its place as a widely used, open-source DAST tool for web and API security. It is well-established, automation-friendly, and supported by a strong community. For many teams—especially those that enjoy crafting tailored pipelines—ZAP remains an excellent choice.

At the same time, modern, larger-scale programs often need centralized orchestration, governance, role-based access, standardized reporting, and dedicated support. In those scenarios, Burp Suite (Enterprise) stands out as the top alternative. It is designed to run and manage automated scans across portfolios, integrate with CI/CD, and deliver the visibility that security leaders and auditors expect.

If you are evaluating your next step, map your program’s needs against the considerations outlined above. Teams focused on cost control and customization may stay with ZAP or use it alongside a commercial platform. Teams prioritizing scale, governance, and support will likely find Burp Suite (Enterprise) a strong fit. Either way, aligning your DAST approach with your development workflows, authentication model, and reporting needs will yield the best long-term results.