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

Apiiro vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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

Apiiro
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
20th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (10th), API Security (10th), Software Supply Chain Security (9th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (12th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (4th)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Apiiro is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.0%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Ryan-Murphy - PeerSpot reviewer
A great secrets detection feature, good visibility, and integrates well
The biggest benefit of Apiiro for us was the visibility it gave us into our GitHub organization, which we didn't have much of before. The benefit of adding Apiiro early is that it would be integrated into our pipeline from the start. Since we have had some of our software products for many years, we would have to do a lot of cleaning up before integrating Apiiro into our developer workflow. Integrating Apiiro early allows us to stay ahead of the curve on security issues and address them as they arise, rather than having a huge backlog for developers to fix. Apiiro's ability to provide visibility into the risk of our application components is great. This was a selling feature for us. Apiiro was a less mature product a little over a year ago when they were still early on in their development. However, they have made fantastic advancements over the last year, which has given us much more visibility into that sort of thing. Apiiro has helped prevent business-critical risks by making recommendations based on what it thinks is a high or critical issue. I think it does a pretty good job at that, but those recommendations still need a manual review from us. In general, if Apiiro flags a critical issue, it is usually pretty close to identifying whether it is business-critical or not. It is something we should review, even if we end up downgrading it. Apiiro raises valid concerns, and I am happy that it does.
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly."
"The workflow automation is likely the best aspect of the solution."
"We are mostly using it for scanning the entire website. So, we basically create a script with the entire website and then run it for different injections."
"Enables automation of different tasks such as authorization testing."
"We use the solution for vulnerability assessment in respect of the application and the sites."
"The solution scans web applications and supports APIs, which are the main features I really like."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"I find the attack model quite amazing, where I can write my scripts and load my scripts as well, which helps quite a bit. All the active scanning that it can do is also quite a lot helpful. It speeds up our vulnerability assessment and penetration testing. Right now, I am enjoying its in-browser, which also helps quite a bit. I'm always confused about setting up some proxy, but it really is the big solution we all want."
"I rate PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional ten points out of ten."
"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."
 

Cons

"User management is a little bit clunky."
"I would like support for our self-hosted Git server, other than GitHub, just regular Git."
"If your application uses multi-factor authentication, registration management cannot be automated."
"Scanning needs to be improved in enterprise and professional versions."
"One area for improvement is the integrated browser, Chromium. Single Sign-On (SSO) methods like Microsoft authentication login sometimes fail and show errors. As a workaround, I have to use a different browser, such as Firefox, to log in and make Burp work."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
"In the Professional version, we cannot link it with the CI/CD process."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
"It would be good if the solution could give us more details about what exactly is defective."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is expensive compared to other tools."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"There are multiple versions available of PortSwigger Burp Suite, such as enterprise, commercial, professional, and beginners."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
853,823 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apiiro?
Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apiiro?
My understanding is the pricing is pretty competitive.
What needs improvement with Apiiro?
Apiiro recently integrated SaaS, and we would love to see them expand on that. They provide many integrations to different products, including SaaS products such as Snyk. Ideally, Apiiro would incl...
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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
 

Also Known As

Apiiro Control Plane (ASOC), Apiiro API Security (SAST), Apiiro Open Source (SCA)
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Morgan Stanley, Rakuten, Jack Henry, SoFi, Colgate, Navan
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Apiiro vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
853,823 professionals have used our research since 2012.