OWASP ZAP vs Intruder
Zero of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; three named Intruder. OWASP ZAP was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Intruder by ten and OWASP ZAP carries 54 labels and Intruder 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in four categories this edition.
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
OWASP ZAPFirst choices, of fourteen modelsIntruder
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, OWASP ZAP and Intruder were named in the same answer forty-five times, of the 188 answers naming OWASP ZAP and the 231 naming Intruder. In those answers Intruder took the first choice twelve times and OWASP ZAP seventeen.
Every model, every framing
| 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 Intruder first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Intruder on the right.The direct prompt
Intruder first, OWASP ZAP not the choice
3 of 14 modelsOWASP ZAP was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
OWASP ZAP43%#1 of 12Intruder16%#2 of 12OWASP ZAP29%#1 of 11Intruder6%#6 of 11OWASP ZAP0%#14 of 14Intruder0%#– 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 Intruder
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“If you need a tool that is easy to set up, offers good support, and doesn't require deep security expertise, Intruder is likely the best fit.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
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.