Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition
OWASP ZAP vs Escape
One of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; zero named Escape. OWASP ZAP was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Escape by nine and OWASP ZAP carries 57 labels and Escape 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Named in two categories 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#6A 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 Escape · 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 modelsEscape
Direct104 against OWASP ZAP
Paraphrase001 against OWASP ZAP
Comparative11
Budget-constrained130
Scale-constrained01
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 Escape 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 4.20 | | | | | | |
| 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 Escape first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Escape on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP ZAP and Escape stood in it.
OWASP ZAP first, Escape not the choice
1 of 14 modelsEscape 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
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, Escape, Invicti
Perplexity SonarInvicti alternatives: Bright Security, Escape, StackHawk
Grok 4.20Invicti alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Probely, 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
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, StackHawk
GPT-5.4 miniStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti
Qwen 3.7 FlashInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Apidog, Postman, Veracode DAST
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder
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 forty-nine points.
OWASP ZAP51%#1 of 13Escape2%#– of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP ZAP leads by twenty-four points.
OWASP ZAP26%#2 of 13Escape2%#6 of 13Enterprise
The order flips: Escape leads at enterprise.
Escape2%#11 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. 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 Escape
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Escape is considered the strongest DAST tool for modern AppSec teams working with APIs and SPAs” Llama 4 Maverick · comparative prompt · first choice
“Modern mid-market / DevSecOps native | StackHawk, Escape, Bright (NeuraLegion)” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“consider Bright Security or Escape for similar developer-first or API-focused workflows” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs EscapeOWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs ProbelyOWASP ZAP vs Veracode DASTAcunetix vs EscapeStackHawk vs EscapeBright Security vs EscapeEscape vs ProbelyEscape 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.