Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition
OWASP ZAP vs Invicti
Zero of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; five named Invicti. Both were named by all fourteen models and OWASP ZAP carries 54 labels and Invicti 43, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share29%20%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate30%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#2A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels5443A 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.Acunetix was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. OWASP ZAP vs Acunetix · 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 modelsInvicti
Direct053 against OWASP ZAP
Paraphrase132 against OWASP ZAP · 1 against Invicti
Comparative151 against OWASP ZAP
Budget-constrained140
Scale-constrained021 against OWASP ZAP
Negative239 against OWASP ZAP · 1 against Invicti
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 Invicti were named in the same answer seventy-one times, of the 188 answers naming OWASP ZAP and the 142 naming Invicti. In those answers Invicti took the first choice twenty-two times and OWASP ZAP eighteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP ZAP and Invicti 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 Invicti first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Invicti on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP ZAP and Invicti stood in it.
Invicti first, OWASP ZAP an alternative
5 of 14 modelsOWASP ZAP was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Intruder, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
GPT-5.4 miniAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: Burp Suite
MiniMax M2.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
GPT-6 LunaInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, StackHawk
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashEscape alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk
DeepSeek V4 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Invicti
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
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security
Mistral SmallBurp Suite Enterprise Edition, Intruder alternatives: Aikido Security
Llama 4 MaverickBurp Suite Enterprise Edition alternatives: Aikido Security, AppCheck, Intruder
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-eight points.
OWASP ZAP43%#1 of 12Invicti5%#5 of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Invicti leads at enterprise.
Invicti62%#1 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 Invicti
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Invicti has had GUI scan bugs observed at times and slows down while scanning large applications” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Quote-only (enterprise skew) | Exploit confirmation; scales well but pricier” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Invicti is considered the best DAST tool for most mid-market enterprises, with proof-based scanning that eliminates false-positive triage” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Combines DAST with IAST, excels at identifying vulnerabilities in web apps and APIs, and is known for high accuracy and low false positives.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“commercial tools like Burp Suite Professional and Invicti catch more vulnerability types than open-source alternatives” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs IntruderOWASP ZAP vs Burp SuiteOWASP ZAP vs Aikido SecurityInvicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs StackHawkInvicti vs Bright SecurityInvicti vs IntruderInvicti vs Burp SuiteInvicti 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.