Index › Products › w3af · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

w3af

4Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

4 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. w3af was named 4 times in DAST, where OWASP ZAP led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market57 of 58

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In dast · 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 w3af 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	Since September 2026
Dynamic application security testing	Developer platform	0%	57 of 58	75%	4	under 10 labels · led by OWASP ZAP at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for w3af yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated w3af across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“An open-source web application attack and audit framework with a plugin-based architecture.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DAST · 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.

“Why avoid: The tool heavily relies on deprecated Python 2.x libraries.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DAST · negative prompt · hard negative

“Why Avoid: Development has stalled significantly.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DAST · negative prompt · hard negative

“Unmaintained FOSS (Skipfish, Arachni, W3AF)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · DAST · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as w3af, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and w3af was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OWASP ZAP4 of 42Not among the top eight

Nikto4 of 40Not among the top eight

Burp Suite3 of 41Not among the top eight

Acunetix3 of 40Not among the top eight

Arachni3 of 40Not among the top eight

HCL AppScan2 of 40Not among the top eight

Qualys WAS2 of 40Not among the top eight

StackHawk2 of 40Not among the top eight

AppScan1 of 40Not among the top eight

Bright Security1 of 40Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 w3af. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 3 of the 4 answers that named w3af and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getastra.com3

getautonoma.com3

appsecsanta.com2

escape.tech2

aikido.dev1

aimultiple.com1

attractgroup.com1

augmentcode.com1

beaglesecurity.com1

blog.detectify.com1

No domain is on file for w3af, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

getastra.com/blog/dast/tools3

getautonoma.com/blog/dast-tools3

info.veracode.com/rs/veracode/images/magic_quadrant_for_DAST.PDF1

aikido.dev/blog/acunetix-alternatives1

aimultiple.com/dast-tools1

appsecsanta.com/arachni1

appsecsanta.com/dast-tools1

appsecsanta.com/dast-tools/free-dast-tools1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as w3af

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as w3af; a claim can dispute any of them.

W3AF 1w3af (Web Application Attack Framework) 1w3af (Web Application Attack and Audit Framework) 1

Follow w3af

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

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 w3af'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 w3af, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for w3af by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where w3af is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name w3af, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.