IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › OWASP ZAP · September 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

OWASP ZAP

12Judge labels

1First choices

3Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

3Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. OWASP ZAP was named 8 times in Vuln management and 2 other categories, where Rapid7 InsightVM led with 45%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business23 of 78

under the label threshold

Mid-market11 of 80

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In vuln management · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named OWASP ZAP for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Vulnerability management platforms	Security operations	2%	11 of 80	40%	5	under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 45%
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	47 of 76	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	45 of 104	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 59%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for OWASP ZAP yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated OWASP ZAP across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	2	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	1	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained10 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“For absolute minimal cost: Greenbone Community Edition (OpenVAS) or OWASP ZAP” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Vuln management · budget prompt · first choice

“ZAP (OWASP ZAP) – web-app scanner with many extensions.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · ASM · budget prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“What to avoid: Tools like OWASP ZAP or Burp Suite Community.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · hard negative

“it struggled with precision (88 false SQL injection alerts on a test app)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OWASP ZAP, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP ZAP was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OpenVAS10 of 122Not in the top three

Intruder7 of 122Not in the top three

ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus5 of 121Not in the top three

Tenable Nessus5 of 120Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management4 of 120Not in the top three

Nmap3 of 120Not in the top three

Nuclei3 of 120Not in the top three

Qualys3 of 120Not in the top three

Trivy3 of 120Not in the top three

Bug Circuit2 of 122Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named OWASP ZAP. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 10 of the 12 answers that named OWASP ZAP and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

axis-intelligence.com6

techrepublic.com6

riskwatch.com5

attaxion.com4

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com4

upguard.com4

beaglesecurity.com3

expertinsights.com3

reddit.com3

affordablepentesting.com2

Forty of the forty domain citations in answers naming OWASP ZAP came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

axis-intelligence.com/best-vulnerability-management-tools-tested6

riskwatch.com/vulnerability-management-software5

techrepublic.com/article/top-vulnerability-management-tools5

attaxion.com/open-source-attack-surface-management3

cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/tools/best-open-source-vulnerability-scanners-for-budget-3

expertinsights.com/security-operations/the-top-vulnerability-management-solutions3

affordablepentesting.com/post/cyber-security-for-startups2

attacksurface.center/pricing2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OWASP ZAP

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as OWASP ZAP; a claim can dispute any of them.

OWASP ZAP (ZAP) 1ZAP 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when OWASP ZAP's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as OWASP ZAP, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at owasp.org is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.