Burp Suite vs OWASP ZAP vs Snyk
Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.
Entry price
From $499 per user/year (Professional)
PaidFree and open source
Open sourceFrom $25 per contributing developer/month (indicative, Team)
Free tierWhat drives the bill
The metric that actually scales your invoice.
PortSwigger raised Professional from $449 to $499 per user/year on 6 January 2026. Licences are strictly per named user and cannot be shared. Enterprise is quote-based by scanning agents and applications.
Free and open source. You pay in engineering time and CI minutes.
Priced per contributing developer. Enterprise agreements add reporting and governance and get expensive.
Free tier
Community Edition is free but omits the scanner and rate-limits key tools.
Everything, self-hosted
Free plan with a monthly test allowance, generous enough for small projects.
Open source
Apache-2.0
Self-hostable
No-code authoring
Languages
Platforms
Fits teams
Adoption
Category standard
PortSwigger · since 2003
Category standard
Checkmarx / OWASP · since 2010
Category standard
Snyk · since 2015
Strengths
- The reference tool for manual application penetration testing — every security professional knows it.
- Exceptional scanner accuracy, particularly for injection classes.
- Professional Edition is remarkably good value at under $500 per year.
- Free, with no licence limits on scanning or users.
- The baseline scan runs in CI in a couple of minutes and catches real misconfiguration.
- Active community and extensive add-on marketplace.
- Reachability analysis dramatically cuts the noise from transitive dependency alerts.
- Automated fix pull requests make remediation a merge rather than a project.
- One vendor covers dependencies, code, containers and IaC.
Limitations
- Community Edition is too limited for serious automated work.
- Requires security expertise; it is not a push-button product for developers.
- Enterprise licensing is a significant step up in cost.
- Higher false-positive rate than commercial DAST tools.
- Scanning authenticated, JavaScript-heavy applications requires meaningful configuration effort.
- The interface is dated and the learning curve is real.
- Per-developer pricing scales uncomfortably in large engineering organisations.
- SAST is less deep than dedicated code-analysis vendors.
- Still produces substantial alert volume on older codebases.
Best for
Security teams and penetration testers, plus enterprises needing scheduled authenticated scanning.
Any team that currently does no dynamic security testing at all.
Engineering teams that want security findings arriving in the pull request with a fix attached.
All of these integrate with: Jenkins.
Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.