Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition
OWASP ZAP vs Bright Security
Zero of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; two named Bright Security. OWASP ZAP was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Bright Security by eight and OWASP ZAP carries 54 labels and Bright Security 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Bright Security
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share29%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate30%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels5411A 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 Acunetix · OWASP ZAP vs StackHawk
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 modelsBright SecurityDirect023 against OWASP ZAP
Paraphrase122 against OWASP ZAP
Comparative101 against OWASP ZAP
Budget-constrained140
Scale-constrained001 against OWASP ZAP
Negative209 against OWASP ZAP
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP ZAP and Bright Security stood in it.
| Model | DirectBS | ParaphraseBS | ComparativeBS | Budget-constrainedBS | Scale-constrainedBS | NegativeBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | BS | | | | |
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | BS | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | BS | | | | | |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | BS | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | BS | BS | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | BS | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | | |
| MiniMax M2.5 | | BS | | | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | |
OWASP ZAPBS Bright Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Bright Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP ZAP and Bright Security stood in it.
Bright Security first, OWASP ZAP not the choice
2 of 14 modelsOWASP ZAP was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
Kimi K2Bright Security, StackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 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
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
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: Burp Suite
Gemini 3.5 FlashEscape alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security
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
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Invicti
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 forty-three points.
OWASP ZAP43%#1 of 12Bright Security0%#– of 12
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP ZAP leads by twenty-two points.
OWASP ZAP29%#1 of 11Bright Security8%#5 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
OWASP ZAP0%#14 of 14Bright Security0%#13 of 14
The full enterprise standing →What 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 Bright Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“For most mid-sized B2B companies, I'd recommend Bright Security as the primary choice.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Bright Security is the strongest fit for many mid-market B2B teams” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“I would recommend Acunetix or Bright Security as top choices” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs InvictiOWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs IntruderOWASP ZAP vs Burp SuiteOWASP ZAP vs Aikido SecurityInvicti vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs Bright SecurityStackHawk vs Bright SecurityBright Security vs IntruderBright Security vs Burp SuiteBright Security 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.