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 Veracode DAST
Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition

OWASP ZAP vs Veracode DAST

One of fourteen models named OWASP ZAP first on the direct prompt; zero named Veracode DAST. OWASP ZAP was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Veracode DAST by nine and OWASP ZAP carries 57 labels and Veracode DAST 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.

OWASP ZAP

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

Veracode DAST

accepted challenger

Named 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%24%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels5717A 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 Veracode DAST · 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 modelsVeracode DAST
Direct104 against OWASP ZAP · 2 against Veracode DAST
Paraphrase011 against OWASP ZAP
Comparative10
Budget-constrained1301 against Veracode DAST
Scale-constrained001 against Veracode DAST
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.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, OWASP ZAP and Veracode DAST were named in the same answer thirty-one times, of the 212 answers naming OWASP ZAP and the 51 naming Veracode DAST. In those answers Veracode DAST took the first choice zero times and OWASP ZAP seven.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP ZAP and Veracode DAST 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 Veracode DAST first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP ZAP on the left and Veracode DAST on the right.

The direct prompt

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

OWASP ZAP first, Veracode DAST not the choice

1 of 14 modelsVeracode DAST 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

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Mistral SmallAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Llama 4 MaverickInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Qwen 3.7 FlashInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Apidog, Postman, Veracode DAST

Neither was named

9 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
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
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 fifty-one points.
OWASP ZAP51%#1 of 13
Veracode DAST0%#– of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP ZAP leads by twenty-four points.
OWASP ZAP26%#2 of 13
Veracode DAST2%#8 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Veracode DAST leads at enterprise.
Veracode DAST2%#9 of 14
OWASP ZAP0%#14 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 Veracode DAST

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

“Avoid pure enterprise tools like full Checkmarx or Veracode unless you have dedicated budget.” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Avoid for Mid-Market: Heavy legacy enterprise suites (e.g., Veracode DAST, HCL AppScan)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise DAST platforms (like Veracode, Rapid7 InsightAppSec, or Fortify) often cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“The recommended dynamic web application security scanners for a mid-sized B2B company are: 1. Veracode Dynamic Analysis” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Veracode/Checkmarx offer robust authentication handling, DOM-rendering crawlers, and managed false-positive controls.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
“Indusface WAS, Detectify, SOOS DAST, Veracode Dynamic Analysis, Checkmarx DAST” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs Veracode DASTOWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs EscapeOWASP ZAP vs ProbelyAcunetix vs Veracode DASTStackHawk vs Veracode DASTBright Security vs Veracode DASTEscape vs Veracode DASTProbely 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.