You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.

CodeSonar vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

CodeSecure and PortSwigger are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. CodeSecure is ranked #31, while PortSwigger is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.8. CodeSecure holds a 1.5% mindshare in AS, compared to PortSwigger’s 2.2% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of CodeSecure users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 98% of PortSwigger users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

2,581 Views
1,781 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...

Read 64 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional reviews

4,607 Views
2,718 Comparison Views

98% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and CodeSonar compete in the field of security testing and static code analysis. Burp Suite showcases greater flexibility and versatility, while CodeSonar offers a robust approach to vulnerability detection.

Features: PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional offers excellent web security testing, automation features, and customizable testing processes. CodeSonar stands out with static code analysis, advanced vulnerability detection, and suitability for complex software systems.

Room for Improvement: Users suggest enhancing Burp Suite's performance speed and efficiency for large-scale scans. CodeSonar needs better user accessibility, improved tool integration, and quicker technical support. Burp Suite's real-time interaction is an added area for future improvement.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is noted for easy setup and responsive support. CodeSonar requires more technical expertise for deployment, and while support is reliable, users desire quicker response times and more detailed assistance.

Pricing and ROI: PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is valued for cost-effectiveness and short-term ROI in web security testing. CodeSonar demands a larger investment but offers significant long-term security benefits, appealing to those prioritizing comprehensive code analysis.

To learn more, read our detailed CodeSonar vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 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

CodeSonar

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Code Analysis (10th)

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...

Ranking in Application Security Tools

10th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of CodeSonar is 1.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.2%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY

Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel

Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand

This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.

Read full review

Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor

Head - Quality Control at Net Solutions

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.

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 tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."

"It has been able to scale."

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."

"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."

"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."

"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."

"The automated scan is what I find most useful because a lot of customers will need it. Not every domain will be looking for complete security, they just need a stamp on the security key. For these kinds of customers, the scan works really well."

"It is useful for scanning and tracing activities."

"The most valuable feature of Burp Suite Professional is its ability to schedule tasks for scanning websites, which helps in performing regular checks of IP addresses."

"The solution is stable."

"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."

"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."

"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."

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional pros

Cons

"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."

"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."

"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."

"It was expensive."

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."

"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."

"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."

"Mitigating the issues and low confluence issues needs some improvement. Implementing demand with the ChatGPT under the web solution is an additional feature I would like to see in the next release."

"The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution."

"BurpSuite has some issues regarding authentication with OAT tokens that need to be improved."

"It would be beneficial to have privileged access management as a part of Burp Suite Professional."

"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional could improve the static code review."

"The pricing of the solution is quite high."

"It would be beneficial to have privileged access management as a part of Burp Suite Professional."

"The tool is very expensive."

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is a bit costly."

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."

"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."

"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."

"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."

"They should reduce the license cost a little bit. It is $400 per user, and it would be better if they could reduce the licensing fee."

"We are using the community version, which is free."

"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."

"It is expensive for us in Brazil because the currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep."

"The pricing of the solution is cost-effective and is best suited for small and medium-sized businesses."

"Burp Suite is affordable."

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

24%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

11%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Government

11%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?

The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?

The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs CodeSonar

Compared 50% of the time

Coverity vs CodeSonar

Compared 24% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

Axivion Static Code Analysis vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

Understand vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

Acunetix vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 16% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 13% of the time

OWASP Zap vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 9% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 7% of the time

HCL AppScan vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 6% of the time

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

July 2025

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

August 2025

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report

Download PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional product report

Also Known As

No data available

Burp

Overview

GrammaTech enables organizations to develop software applications more efficiently, on-budget, and on-schedule by helping to eliminate harmful defects that can cause system failures, enable data breaches, and ultimately increase corporate liabilities in today’s connected world. GrammaTech is the developer of CodeSonar, the most powerful source and binary code analysis solution available today. Extraordinarily precise, CodeSonar finds, on average, 2 times more serious defects in software than other static analysis solutions. Designed for organizations with zero tolerance for defects and vulnerabilities in their applications, CodeSonar provides static analysis for applications where reliability and security are paramount - widely used by software developers in avionics, medical, automotive, industrial control, and other mission-critical applications. Some of GrammaTech's customers include Toyota, GE, Hyundai, Kawasaki, LG, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic, and Samsung.

CodeSecure

Burp Suite Professional, by PortSwigger, is the world’s leading toolkit for web security testing. Over 52,000 users worldwide, across all industries and organization sizes, trust Burp Suite Professional to find more vulnerabilities, faster. With expertly-engineered manual and automated tooling, you're able to test smarter - not harder.

PortSwigger is the web security company that is enabling the world to secure the web. Over 50,000 security engineers rely on our software and expertise to secure their world.

PortSwigger

Sample Customers

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce

Buyer's Guide

CodeSonar vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

July 2025

Free Report: CodeSonar vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Find out what your peers are saying about CodeSonar vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CodeSonar vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report.

See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.