# OWASP ZAP vs Bright Security: which do AI models recommend for DAST, October 2026

IT AI Recommendation Index, October 2026 Edition, Dynamic application security testing. Zero of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; two named Bright Security. Page: https://it-ai-index.com/developer/dynamic-application-security-testing/owasp-zap-vs-bright-security/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OWASP ZAP | 29% | #1 of 11 | 30% | 54 | 14 of 14 |
| Bright Security | 8% | #5 of 11 | 0% | 11 | 8 of 14 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- Perplexity Sonar: bright security first (first choices: Bright Security) (alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder)
- Kimi K2: bright security first (first choices: Bright Security, StackHawk) (alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Invicti) (alternatives: Acunetix, Intruder, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: neither first, one named (first choices: StackHawk) (alternatives: OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Invicti) (alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec)
- Muse Glimmer 30B: neither first, one named (first choices: Invicti) (alternatives: Acunetix, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Acunetix, Invicti) (alternatives: Burp Suite)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither named (first choices: Escape) (alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither named (first choices: Intruder) (alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security)
- Mistral Small: neither named (first choices: Burp Suite Enterprise Edition, Intruder) (alternatives: Aikido Security)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: neither named (first choices: StackHawk) (alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Invicti)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named (first choices: Burp Suite Enterprise Edition) (alternatives: Aikido Security, AppCheck, Intruder)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: neither named (first choices: Intruder) (alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Invicti)
- GPT-6 Luna: neither named (first choices: Invicti) (alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, StackHawk)

## What the models said about OWASP ZAP

- "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

- "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)

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. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.