GitGuardian Platform vs OWASP Zap comparison

GitGuardian and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. GitGuardian is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.8, while OWASP is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. GitGuardian holds a 0.9% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 4.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of GitGuardian users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

GitGuardian Platform

Read 32 GitGuardian Platform reviews

5,371 Views
2,256 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,405 Views
6,813 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

GitGuardian Platform

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

OWASP Zap and GitGuardian Platform are both prominent tools in the cybersecurity domain but serve different purposes. GitGuardian Platform has the upper hand due to its advanced secret detection capabilities and extensive integration options.

Features:OWASP Zap is appreciated for its comprehensive scanning capabilities, strong extensibility via plugins, and in-depth security testing. Alternatively, GitGuardian Platform excels in real-time secret detection, integration within CI/CD pipelines, and extensive compliance features, especially beneficial for organizations focusing on code security and requiring robust detection and integration capabilities.

Room for Improvement:OWASP Zap would benefit from improved user documentation, enhanced reporting features, and better integration with continuous integration pipelines. GitGuardian Platform could improve by reducing the false positive rate, expanding the customization options for secret detection, and offering more user-friendly cost structures.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:OWASP Zap is straightforward to deploy, with a lightweight setup and community-driven support. GitGuardian Platform provides more extensive deployment models, with both cloud and on-premise options, professional support, and detailed documentation, offering a more robust deployment experience.

Pricing and ROI:OWASP Zap is free and open-source, making it cost-effective for small to medium-sized organizations. GitGuardian Platform, though more expensive due to premium cloud services, offers substantial ROI by safeguarding sensitive information and improving developer efficiency. Investing in GitGuardian is justified for organizations with a significant focus on code security.

To learn more, read our detailed GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,259 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

GitGuardian Platform

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

4th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (7th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (7th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (5th), Software Supply Chain Security (5th), DevSecOps (4th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (2nd)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 0.9%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.3%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
GitGuardian Platform	0.9%
OWASP Zap	4.3%
Other	94.8%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Ney Roman

DevOps Engineer at Deuna App

Facilitates efficient secret management and improves development processes

Regarding the exceptions in GitGuardian Platform, we know that within the platform we have a way to accept a path or a directory from a repository, but it is not that visible at the very beginning. You have to figure out where to search for it, and once you have it, it is really good, but it is not that visible at the beginning. This should be made more exposed. The documentation could be better because it was not that comprehensively documented. When we started working with GitGuardian Platform, it was difficult to find some specific use cases, and we were not aware of that. It might have improved now, but at that time, it was not something we would recommend.

Read full review

Prasant Pokarnaa

Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies

Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed

OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The majority of our incidents for critical detectors and important secret types are remediated automatically or proactively by developers through GitGuardian's notification system, without security team involvement."

"The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."

"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."

"The newest addition that we appreciate about GitGuardian Platform is the ability to create a custom detector, which we built and worked with the team, and that works very effectively."

"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."

"The stability of the GitGuardian Platform is excellent."

"It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smaller company and have never changed in size, but we got to the point where we felt the service brought us value, and we want to pay for it. We also wanted an SLA for technical support and whatnot, so we switched to a paid plan. Without that, they had a super-generous, free tier, and I was immensely impressed with it."

"We have definitely seen a return on investment when it finds things that are real. We have caught a couple things before they made it to production, and had they made it to production, that would have been dangerous."

More GitGuardian Platform pros

"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

"The solution has tightened our security."

"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."

"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives."

"Other solutions have a live chat feature that provides instant results. Waiting for an agent to reply to an email is less ideal than an instant conversation with a support employee. That's a complaint so minor I almost hesitate to mention it."

"I would like to see improvement in some of the user interface features... When one secret is leaked in multiple files or multiple repositories, it will appear on the dashboard. But when you click on that secret, all the occurrences will appear on the page. It would be better to have one secret per occurrence, directly, so that we don't have to click to get to the list of all the occurrences."

"One improvement that I'd like to see is a cleaner for Splunk logs. It would be nice to have a middle man for anything we send or receive from Splunk forwarders. I'd love to see it get cleaned by GitGuardian or caught to make sure we don't have any secrets getting committed to Splunk logs."

"It could be easier. They have a CLI tool that engineers can run on their laptops, but getting engineers to install the tool is a manual process. I would like to see them have it integrated into one of those developer tools, e.g., VS Code or JetBrains, so developers don't have to think about it."

"The analytics in GitGuardian Platform have a significant opportunity to better reflect the value provided to security teams and demonstrate actual activity occurring."

"It would be nice if they supported detecting PII or had some kind of data loss prevention feature."

"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."

More GitGuardian Platform cons

"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."

"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."

"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."

"There isn't too much information about it online."

"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a little bit expensive."

"It's not cheap, but it's not crazy expensive either."

"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."

"It's a bit expensive, but it works well. You get what you pay for."

"GitGuardian is on the pricier side."

"With GitGuardian, we didn't need any middlemen."

"You get what you pay for. It's one of the more expensive solutions, but it is very good, and the low false positive rate is a really appealing factor."

"It's fairly priced, as it performs a lot of analysis and is a valuable tool."

More GitGuardian Platform pricing and cost advice

"This solution is open source and free."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"The tool is open source."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Government

18%

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?

GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives. We utilize the automated playbooks from GitGuardian Platform, and we are enhancing them. We will pr...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 13% of the time

Snyk vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 12% of the time

SafeGuard Cyber Security vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 9% of the time

Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 8% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs GitGuardian Platform

Compared 8% of the time

More GitGuardian Platform Competitors

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 19% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

GitGuardian Platform

December 2025

Download GitGuardian Platform product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

December 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring

No data available

Interactive Demo

GitGuardian

Demo not available

OWASP

Overview

GitGuardian is a comprehensive platform focused on enhancing Non-Human Identity security by integrating Secrets Security and Secrets Observability to detect and manage secrets across development environments.

As cybersecurity threats increasingly target NHIs like service accounts and applications, GitGuardian offers a robust solution by supporting over 450 types of secrets and deploying honeytokens for additional defense. Trusted by leading organizations and developers, its monitoring and quick alert system enable effective detection and management of sensitive data, strengthening operational security across platforms.

What are the key features of GitGuardian?

Secrets Detection: Identifies various secrets types such as AWS keys and passwords.
Quick Alerts: Provides timely notifications for immediate risk management.
Integration: Seamlessly integrates with development tools and workflows.
Dev in the Loop: Facilitates rapid issue resolution.
Historical Scanning: Enhances security through thorough scanning practices.

What benefits and ROI should companies consider?

Efficiency: Streamlined remediation processes with minimal false positives.
Customizability: Adaptable detection features cater to specific needs.
Risk Reduction: Proactive management of sensitive data threats.
Team Integration: Improved collaboration through connected workflows.
Development Continuity: Maintains seamless operation during security processes.

In the tech industry, GitGuardian is employed to safeguard APIs and sensitive credentials across code repositories like GitHub. Companies benefit from instant alerts and integrations with tools like Slack, effectively managing risks and enhancing security policies. While popular in sectors dependent on development agility, there is room for further improvement in customization and integration to meet specific industry needs.

GitGuardian

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by over 600 thousand developers and leading companies, including Snowflake, Orange, Iress, Mirantis, Maven Wave, ING, BASF, and Bouygues Telecom.

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap

December 2025

Free Report: GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our GitGuardian Platform vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.