Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › IT › Developer platform › DAST › OWASP ZAP vs Acunetix
Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition

OWASP ZAP vs Acunetix

One of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; four named Acunetix. Both were named by all fourteen models and OWASP ZAP carries 57 labels and Acunetix 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.

OWASP ZAP

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

Acunetix

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share26%13%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate25%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels5735A 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.Invicti was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Invicti vs OWASP ZAP · Invicti vs Acunetix · OWASP ZAP vs StackHawk

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 modelsAcunetix
Direct144 against OWASP ZAP
Paraphrase031 against OWASP ZAP
Comparative13
Budget-constrained1301 against Acunetix
Scale-constrained00
Negative109 against OWASP ZAP · 1 against Acunetix
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 November 2026 Edition, OWASP ZAP and Acunetix were named in the same answer seventy-three times, of the 212 answers naming OWASP ZAP and the 104 naming Acunetix. In those answers Acunetix took the first choice ten times and OWASP ZAP twenty-one.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP ZAP and Acunetix stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
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 Acunetix first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Acunetix on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP ZAP and Acunetix stood in it.

OWASP ZAP first, Acunetix not the choice

1 of 14 modelsAcunetix was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GLM 4.7 FlashXOWASP ZAP, Probely alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti, StackHawk

Acunetix first, OWASP ZAP an alternative

4 of 14 modelsOWASP ZAP was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder

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.
Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, StackHawk
Gemini 3.5 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, Escape, Invicti
Llama 4 MaverickInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Qwen 3.7 FlashInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Apidog, Postman, Veracode DAST
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, StackHawk

Neither was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti
Perplexity SonarInvicti alternatives: Bright Security, Escape, StackHawk
Grok 4.20Invicti alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Probely, StackHawk
GPT-6 LunaStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, Invicti

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 forty-three points.
OWASP ZAP51%#1 of 13
Acunetix8%#4 of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP ZAP leads by thirteen points.
OWASP ZAP26%#2 of 13
Acunetix13%#3 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
OWASP ZAP0%#14 of 14
Acunetix0%#13 of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about OWASP ZAP

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“it is advisable to avoid or proceed with extreme caution when using OWASP ZAP or Invicti in automated pipelines” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid for Automated Pipelines: OWASP ZAP (if you lack a dedicated team to manage it).” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Unmanaged open-source tools (like raw OWASP ZAP) unless you have dedicated headcount” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · hard negative
“Best default for a limited budget: ZAP by Checkmarx (formerly OWASP ZAP). It's free and open source” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“Use OWASP ZAP (actively maintained, modern browser crawling support, strong CI/CD integration)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · first choice

What the models said about Acunetix

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Acunetix notes its heuristic approach and AcuSensor reduces false positives, but still recommends” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“more enterprise-friendly, but usually much more expensive” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Acunetix offers the best balance of cost, ease of use, and sufficient capabilities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“A pragmatic mid-sized B2B starting point is Acunetix for a balanced commercial DAST with low false positives” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For dev teams wanting quick, reliable scans with low false positives: Choose Invicti or Acunetix.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs EscapeOWASP ZAP vs ProbelyOWASP ZAP vs Veracode DASTAcunetix vs StackHawkAcunetix vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs EscapeAcunetix vs ProbelyAcunetix vs Veracode DASTAll 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.