Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GitGuardian Public Monitoring vs OWASP Zap comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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 Public Monitoring
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
18th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (23rd), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (23rd), Threat Intelligence Platforms (17th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of GitGuardian Public Monitoring is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Theo Cusnir - PeerSpot reviewer
Detects and alerts us about leaks quickly, and enables us to filter and prioritize occurrences
One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository. For example, if I put "Payfit" in the tool, I will be alerted every time someone is committing with that word in the code. It's really useful for internal domain names, to detect if someone is leaking internal code. With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots. It can detect a leak in 10 minutes. We had an experience with one of our engineers who had leaked a secret, and 10 minutes afterward we had a warning from GitGuardian about the leak. It's very effective. We looked at the commit date and the current date with hours and minutes and we could see that the commit had been made 10 minutes ago. As a result, we are sure it is pretty fast. Another feature, one that helps prioritize remediation, is that you can filter the findings by criticality. That definitely helps us to prioritize which secrets we should rotate and delete.
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support
There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."
"One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository... With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots."
"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."
"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
 

Cons

"I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers."
"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."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a bit expensive, but it works well. You get what you pay for."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"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 tool is open-source."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
20%
Energy/Utilities Company
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitGuardian Public Monitoring?
The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for.
What needs improvement with GitGuardian Public Monitoring?
I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems...
What is your primary use case for GitGuardian Public Monitoring?
We use GitGuardian Public Monitoring for code that is exposed in public.
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 ...
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...
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.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Align Technology, Automox, Fred Hutch, Instacart, Maven Wave, Mirantis, SafetyCulture, Snowflake, Talend
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
Find out what your peers are saying about GitGuardian Public Monitoring vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.