Top 39 Alternatives to OWASP ZAP for Java Testing

Introduction

OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) is one of the most recognized open-source security testing tools for web applications and APIs. As a long-standing OWASP project, it rose to prominence by offering developers and security teams a free, CI-friendly Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solution that is powerful enough for professional use yet approachable for smaller teams. ZAP’s core components—such as its passive and active scanners, spidering/crawling, API scanning, proxy capabilities, and automation hooks—made it a staple in DevSecOps pipelines. Its Java-based foundation, extensible add-on ecosystem, and supportive community helped drive widespread adoption.

Over time, teams have broadened their testing strategies beyond security DAST alone. As Java applications span APIs, web UIs, mobile clients, messaging systems, and desktop components, organizations often seek complementary or alternative tools for functional, performance, accessibility, visual, and mobile testing. While ZAP remains excellent within its niche, many teams now look for alternatives to address wider testing needs, integrate with different tech stacks, or streamline specialized workflows.

The Top 39 OWASP ZAP Alternatives Covered

Here are the top 39 alternatives for OWASP ZAP:

• Applitools Eyes

• Burp Suite (Enterprise)

• Citrus

• Cypress

• Detox

• Espresso

• FitNesse

• Gauge

• IBM Rational Functional Tester

• JMeter

• JUnit

• Jest

• Katalon Platform (Studio)

• Mabl

• Mocha

• NeoLoad

• Nightwatch.js

• PIT (Pitest)

• Playwright

• Postman + Newman

• Protractor (deprecated)

• ReadyAPI

• Repeato

• Rest Assured

• Sahi Pro

• Selenide

• Serenity BDD

• SikuliX

• SoapUI (Open Source)

• TestCafe

• TestCafe Studio

• TestComplete

• TestNG

• UI Automator

• Vitest

• Waldo

• WebdriverIO

• axe-core / axe DevTools

• k6

Why Look for OWASP ZAP Alternatives?

• Broader test coverage beyond DAST: ZAP is specialized for dynamic security scanning, but teams often need functional UI testing, API contract testing, performance/load testing, accessibility checks, mobile testing, and visual regression tools.

• Reporting and analytics expectations: Some teams need richer dashboards, trend analysis, and management reporting beyond what ZAP’s default outputs provide.

• Scaling scans in CI/CD: Large test suites or complex apps may require optimized scheduling, distributed scanning, or smarter test selection that specialized tools can offer.

• Language and framework fit: While ZAP works well with Java-based pipelines, some teams prefer tools that match their dominant language (e.g., JavaScript) or framework conventions for developer-first workflows.

• Integrations and ecosystem: Teams may prefer tools that integrate more natively with their existing cloud platforms, observability stacks, or enterprise controls.

Detailed Breakdown of OWASP ZAP Alternatives

Applitools Eyes

Applitools Eyes is an AI-powered visual testing platform for web, mobile, and desktop, built by Applitools. It focuses on visual diffs and cross-browser/cross-device validation using the Ultrafast Grid.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Unlike ZAP’s DAST focus, Eyes validates UI look-and-feel, not security vulnerabilities. It complements ZAP by catching visual drift that security scanners won’t detect.

Burp Suite (Enterprise)

Burp Suite Enterprise, from PortSwigger, is a commercial DAST solution for web and API targets with enterprise-scale automation.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Both perform DAST, but Burp Enterprise provides commercial-grade orchestration and reporting. Teams choosing it often want turnkey enterprise management beyond ZAP’s open-source model.

Citrus

Citrus is an open-source integration and message-based test framework for HTTP, SOAP, REST, WebSocket, JMS, and more.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Citrus targets functional integration testing rather than security scanning. It complements ZAP by validating message correctness across services.

Cypress

Cypress is a JavaScript end-to-end web testing framework by Cypress.io with a modern developer experience and time-travel debugging.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Cypress focuses on functional UI testing for web apps, not DAST. It pairs with ZAP when teams want robust UI regression coverage alongside security scanning.

Detox

Detox, originally by Wix and now community-driven, is a gray-box mobile testing framework primarily for React Native on iOS and Android.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Detox is for mobile UI automation, not security scanning. It complements ZAP when mobile client validation is needed in addition to backend security checks.

Espresso

Espresso is Google’s official Android UI testing framework.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Espresso handles Android UI functionality, while ZAP targets web/API security. Use Espresso for mobile UX correctness and ZAP for backend and web-layer DAST.

FitNesse

FitNesse is a wiki-based acceptance testing framework for web and APIs, community-driven and open source.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: FitNesse validates business rules/functionality, not security vulnerabilities. It complements ZAP by codifying acceptance criteria alongside security checks.

Gauge

Gauge, from ThoughtWorks, is a lightweight, specification-based testing framework for web and other apps.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Gauge is for functional/spec testing, not DAST. Teams often combine Gauge with ZAP to couple user-flow validation with security scanning.

IBM Rational Functional Tester

IBM RFT is an enterprise functional UI testing tool for desktop and web applications.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: RFT targets functional UI coverage in enterprise stacks; ZAP focuses on security scanning. RFT is chosen where legacy desktop/web automation is critical.

JMeter

Apache JMeter is an open-source performance/load testing tool for web, APIs, and various protocols.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: JMeter measures performance and scalability; ZAP finds security issues. Many teams run both: JMeter for load and ZAP for DAST.

JUnit

JUnit is the de facto unit and integration testing framework for the JVM.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: JUnit checks functional correctness at unit/integration levels; ZAP scans for security flaws. JUnit forms the backbone of Java test suites with ZAP as a specialized security layer.

Jest

Jest is a JavaScript testing framework originally from Facebook (Meta), widely used for Node.js, web, and React Native.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Jest validates JS logic and components, not security. It complements ZAP in full-stack teams where the frontend is JS-heavy.

Katalon Platform (Studio)

Katalon Platform is a commercial, low-code solution for web, mobile, API, and desktop testing by Katalon.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Katalon is a broad functional automation suite; ZAP is DAST-focused. Teams pick Katalon for consolidated test authoring and ZAP for security.

Mabl

Mabl is a SaaS-first, low-code, AI-augmented end-to-end testing platform for web and API.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Mabl emphasizes functional E2E automation; ZAP targets security scanning. They complement each other in modern CI pipelines.

Mocha

Mocha is a popular JavaScript test runner for Node.js.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Mocha validates logic and services in Node.js; ZAP finds runtime security issues. Mocha is part of functional testing; ZAP adds security.

NeoLoad

NeoLoad, now part of Tricentis, is an enterprise performance/load testing platform.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: NeoLoad focuses on system performance and reliability under load; ZAP focuses on vulnerabilities. Use both for performance and security coverage.

Nightwatch.js

Nightwatch.js is an end-to-end web testing framework that supports Selenium/WebDriver and WebDriver BiDi.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Nightwatch.js is for functional UI automation; ZAP is for DAST. Nightwatch helps verify flows that ZAP can then target for security scanning.

PIT (Pitest)

Pitest is an open-source mutation testing tool for the JVM.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Pitest improves test rigor; ZAP identifies security weaknesses. Pairing both raises overall code and security confidence.

Playwright

Playwright, by Microsoft, is a modern end-to-end testing framework for Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Playwright is for functional UI testing; ZAP is for DAST. Playwright is often chosen for its speed and reliability in UI automation.

Postman + Newman

Postman (GUI) and Newman (CLI) are widely used for API testing and automation.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Postman focuses on API functionality, schemas, and regression; ZAP probes for security issues. They complement each other in API pipelines.

Protractor (deprecated)

Protractor, once maintained by the Angular team, is deprecated and not recommended for new projects.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Protractor was for functional E2E testing, not DAST. For new work, adopt Playwright or Cypress; keep ZAP for security.

ReadyAPI

ReadyAPI, by SmartBear, is a commercial API testing suite for SOAP, REST, and GraphQL.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: ReadyAPI emphasizes rich API functional testing and some security checks; ZAP specializes in DAST. Many teams use ReadyAPI for deep API validation and ZAP for broader dynamic scanning.

Repeato

Repeato is a commercial, codeless mobile test tool using computer vision for iOS and Android.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Repeato validates mobile UI behavior; ZAP targets web/API security. It’s a good fit where mobile UI coverage is a priority.

Rest Assured

Rest Assured is an open-source Java DSL for API testing.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Rest Assured asserts API functionality and contracts; ZAP probes for vulnerabilities. Together they deliver strong API quality and security.

Sahi Pro

Sahi Pro, by Tyto Software, is an enterprise-focused web and desktop automation tool.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Sahi Pro targets functional automation in enterprise apps; ZAP focuses on DAST. Sahi Pro is chosen for UI reliability over large test suites.

Selenide

Selenide is a Java wrapper over Selenium that simplifies waits and interactions.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Selenide is for functional UI tests in Java; ZAP is for DAST. Selenide is ideal for Java teams needing reliable UI automation.

Serenity BDD

Serenity BDD, by the open-source community, enhances BDD workflows with rich reporting and the Screenplay pattern.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Serenity BDD structures functional and acceptance tests; ZAP scans for security vulnerabilities. They complement each other in BDD-driven teams.

SikuliX

SikuliX is an open-source, image-based automation tool for desktop apps across Windows, macOS, and Linux.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: SikuliX automates desktop UIs; ZAP targets web/API security. Choose SikuliX where desktop testing is required.

SoapUI (Open Source)

SoapUI OSS is an open-source API testing tool, community-led under SmartBear.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: SoapUI focuses on API functionality and regression; ZAP specializes in DAST. SoapUI + ZAP provides broad API quality and security coverage.

TestCafe

TestCafe, by DevExpress, is a modern web E2E testing framework that runs without WebDriver.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: TestCafe is for functional UI testing; ZAP is for DAST. Teams use TestCafe to validate flows and ZAP to assess security.

TestCafe Studio

TestCafe Studio, from DevExpress, is the commercial, codeless IDE version of TestCafe.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Like TestCafe, it targets functional UI tests; ZAP targets DAST. It’s helpful for teams standardizing on codeless UI creation.

TestComplete

TestComplete, by SmartBear, is a codeless/scripted platform for desktop, web, and mobile test automation.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: TestComplete is functional automation across UI layers; ZAP is security scanning. They serve different testing goals.

TestNG

TestNG is a flexible testing framework for the JVM with advanced annotations and parallelism.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: TestNG organizes functional/unit tests; ZAP provides DAST. Together they build comprehensive Java test suites.

UI Automator

UI Automator, by Google, automates Android UI across apps and system UI.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: UI Automator targets Android UI; ZAP targets web/API security. It’s essential for mobile device coverage.

Vitest

Vitest is a fast, Vite-native JavaScript test runner for unit and component tests.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Vitest checks JS logic/components; ZAP identifies security issues. Use both in modern front-end stacks.

Waldo

Waldo is a commercial, no-code mobile testing platform for iOS and Android.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: Waldo validates mobile app flows; ZAP targets backend/web security. Waldo is chosen for rapid mobile test authoring.

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO is a modern JS/TS test framework over WebDriver and DevTools, extendable to mobile via Appium.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: WebdriverIO is functional E2E automation; ZAP is DAST. This pairing is common in full-stack teams.

axe-core / axe DevTools

axe-core (open source) and axe DevTools (commercial), by Deque Systems, provide automated accessibility testing for the web.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: axe focuses on accessibility compliance; ZAP focuses on security vulnerabilities. Both are critical non-functional quality gates.

k6

k6, by Grafana Labs, is a developer-centric performance/load testing tool with an optional cloud offering.

• Strengths:

• How it compares to ZAP: k6 measures performance and reliability under load; ZAP finds security flaws. Running both yields robust performance and security insights.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a ZAP Alternative

• Project scope and risk profile: Identify whether you need functional UI, API contract, performance, accessibility, mobile, or security testing—and in what order of priority.

• Language and framework alignment: Prefer tools that fit your primary stack (e.g., Java for JVM services, JS/TS for front-end) to reduce friction and maintenance.

• Ease of setup and learning curve: Low-code or codeless tools can accelerate onboarding; developer-centric tools may offer deeper control at the cost of ramp-up.

• Execution speed and stability: Look for auto-waits, trace viewers, or gray-box sync to reduce flakiness and speed feedback loops.

• CI/CD integration: Ensure first-class CLI, container images, test artifacts, and pipeline steps are available for your build environment.

• Reporting and analytics: Consider dashboards, trend reporting, coverage metrics, and executive summaries to support stakeholders beyond engineering.

• Debugging and observability: Capabilities like network tracing, screenshots/video, logs, and integration with APM/monitoring will save time during triage.

• Community and ecosystem: Active communities, plugins, tutorials, and vendor support can be decisive for long-term success.

• Scalability and cost: Factor in parallel execution, cloud/off-prem orchestration, licensing, and total cost of ownership as your test suites grow.

Conclusion

OWASP ZAP remains a widely used and trusted DAST tool for web and API security scanning, especially valued for its open-source model, automation hooks, and strong community. However, as Java teams embrace broader testing strategies—spanning functional UI, API contract, performance, accessibility, visual, and mobile—many find that specialized tools better address modern needs or integrate more naturally with their stacks and workflows.

• Choose functional UI frameworks (e.g., Playwright, Selenide, WebdriverIO, Cypress, TestCafe) when validating user journeys and preventing regressions.

• Adopt API testing solutions (e.g., Rest Assured, Postman + Newman, ReadyAPI, SoapUI) to harden service contracts and backends.

• Use performance tools (e.g., JMeter, k6, NeoLoad) to confirm scalability and reliability under load.

• Add visual and accessibility checks (e.g., Applitools Eyes, axe-core) to protect usability, brand, and compliance.

• Cover mobile with native or codeless options (e.g., Espresso, UI Automator, Detox, Repeato, Waldo).

In many organizations, the most effective approach is not replacing ZAP outright, but complementing it with a curated toolbox aligned to your application architecture and risk profile. This layered strategy helps teams achieve comprehensive quality and security across the entire delivery pipeline while preserving the strengths that made ZAP a staple in the first place.