Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition
OWASP ZAP vs Bright Security
One of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; one named Bright Security. OWASP ZAP was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Bright Security by seven and OWASP ZAP carries 57 labels and Bright Security 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Bright Security
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share26%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate25%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#5A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels5711A 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 Bright Security · OWASP ZAP vs Acunetix
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 modelsBright SecurityDirect114 against OWASP ZAP
Paraphrase001 against OWASP ZAP
Comparative10
Budget-constrained130
Scale-constrained00
Negative109 against OWASP ZAP
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP ZAP and Bright Security stood in it.
| Model | DirectBS | ParaphraseBS | ComparativeBS | Budget-constrainedBS | Scale-constrainedBS | NegativeBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | BS | BS | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | BS | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | BS | | | | | |
| Grok 4.20 | | | BS | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | BS | | | | BS |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | | |||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | BS | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | | |
| MiniMax M2.5 | BS | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | ||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
OWASP ZAPBS Bright Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Bright Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP ZAP and Bright Security stood in it.
OWASP ZAP first, Bright Security not the choice
1 of 14 modelsBright Security 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
Bright Security first, OWASP ZAP not the choice
1 of 14 modelsOWASP ZAP was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder
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.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, StackHawk
Gemini 3.5 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, Escape, Invicti
Perplexity SonarInvicti alternatives: Bright Security, Escape, StackHawk
Mistral SmallAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Llama 4 MaverickInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti
Grok 4.20Invicti alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Probely, StackHawk
Qwen 3.7 FlashInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Apidog, Postman, Veracode DAST
GPT-6 LunaStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, Invicti
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, StackHawk
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 fifty-one points.
OWASP ZAP51%#1 of 13Bright Security0%#– of 13
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP ZAP leads by twenty-four points.
OWASP ZAP26%#2 of 13Bright Security2%#5 of 13
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
The order flips: Bright Security leads at enterprise.
Bright Security2%#10 of 14
OWASP 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. 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 Bright Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“I'd recommend starting with Acunetix or Bright Security” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Use modern AI-assisted DAST tools (Bright Security, Invicti, Checkmarx DAST, Detectify) that support modern architectures” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
“Bright Security is best for mid-market companies with API-first architectures seeking early SDLC security integration.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs EscapeOWASP ZAP vs ProbelyOWASP ZAP vs Veracode DASTAcunetix vs Bright SecurityStackHawk vs Bright SecurityBright Security vs EscapeBright Security vs ProbelyBright Security 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.