We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The API is exceptional."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"The price could be better."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 8 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Veracode. See our Ixia BreakingPoint 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.
