Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition
OWASP ZAP vs Acunetix
Zero of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; one named Acunetix. OWASP ZAP was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Acunetix by thirteen and OWASP ZAP carries 54 labels and Acunetix 39, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in four categories this edition.
First-choice share29%12%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate30%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels5439A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, OWASP ZAP reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Invicti was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. OWASP ZAP vs Invicti · OWASP ZAP vs StackHawk · OWASP ZAP vs Bright Security
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the dynamic application security testing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
OWASP ZAPFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAcunetix
Direct013 against OWASP ZAP
Paraphrase152 against OWASP ZAP
Comparative101 against OWASP ZAP · 1 against Acunetix
Budget-constrained140
Scale-constrained001 against OWASP ZAP
Negative209 against OWASP ZAP · 4 against Acunetix
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, OWASP ZAP and Acunetix were named in the same answer seventy-four times, of the 188 answers naming OWASP ZAP and the 125 naming Acunetix. In those answers Acunetix took the first choice six times and OWASP ZAP twenty-one.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP ZAP and Acunetix stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | | |
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | | | |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | | |||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | | |
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | | |
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | |
OWASP ZAP Acunetix first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Acunetix on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP ZAP and Acunetix stood in it.
Acunetix first, OWASP ZAP not the choice
1 of 14 modelsOWASP ZAP was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: Burp Suite
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Intruder, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Invicti
Kimi K2Bright Security, StackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti
GLM 4.7 FlashXStackHawk alternatives: OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
MiniMax M2.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashEscape alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk
Mistral SmallBurp Suite Enterprise Edition, Intruder alternatives: Aikido Security
DeepSeek V4 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Invicti
Llama 4 MaverickBurp Suite Enterprise Edition alternatives: Aikido Security, AppCheck, Intruder
GPT-6 LunaInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, StackHawk
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
OWASP ZAP leads by thirty-four points.
OWASP ZAP43%#1 of 12Acunetix9%#4 of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP ZAP leads by eighteen points.
OWASP ZAP29%#1 of 11Acunetix12%#3 of 11Enterprise
The order flips: Acunetix leads at enterprise.
Acunetix2%#10 of 14OWASP ZAP0%#14 of 14What the models said about OWASP ZAP
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“The Verdict: Avoid for CI/CD pipelines. Use only if you have dedicated in-house pentesters.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“High false positive rates require significant manual tuning and expertise... Avoid if: You're new to security testing or need low-maintenance automation.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“While OWASP ZAP is excellent and free, mid-sized B2B companies typically: Lack dedicated security teams to tune and manage false positives” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“For most small to medium-sized companies just starting with DAST, OWASP ZAP is typically the best choice due to its zero cost, robust features, and strong community support.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“the best DAST tool is usually OWASP ZAP because it is free, open-source, extensible, and widely recommended as the default starting point” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
“OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) is widely considered the best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) tool available.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Acunetix
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“excellent for complex web applications with 12,000+ vulnerability types, but has a premium price and potential for false positives” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · soft negative
“The Verdict: Use with caution. It is a popular commercial tool, but it is notorious for being "noisy."” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“Legacy versions struggle with SPAs, CAPTCHAs, and complex auth, leading to shallow coverage and noise.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“my recommendation is Acunetix if you want a strong balance of broad web scanning, automation, and mid-market fit” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For a B2B company specifically, I'd lean toward Acunetix due to its strong API security testing capabilities” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“If you want one name: Acunetix by Invicti is the safest recommendation for most mid-market B2B companies.” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs InvictiOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs IntruderOWASP ZAP vs Burp SuiteOWASP ZAP vs Aikido SecurityInvicti vs AcunetixAcunetix vs StackHawkAcunetix vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs IntruderAcunetix vs Burp SuiteAcunetix vs Aikido SecurityAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DAST standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.