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

Defensics Fuzzing vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Defensics Fuzzing
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Fuzz Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Defensics Fuzzing is 22.4%, up from 17.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 32.8%, up from 24.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.
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

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
"It offers flexibility, macros, and features to reduce the effort required for authenticated sessions."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
"The technical support from PortSwigger is excellent, managing response time and quality efficiently without any issues."
"The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"It's good testing software."
"I have found this solution has more plugins than other competitors which is a benefit. You are able to attach different plugins to the security scan to add features. For example, you can check to see if there are any payment systems that exist on a server, or username and password brute force analysis."
"It is a time-saver application."
 

Cons

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"There could be an improvement in the API security testing. There is another tool called Postman and if we had a built-in portal similar to Postman which captures the API, we would be able to generate the API traffic. Right now we need a Postman tool and the Burp Suite for performing API tests. It would be a huge benefit to be able to do it in a single UI."
"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."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"Scanning needs to be improved in enterprise and professional versions."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
"BurpSuite has some issues regarding authentication with OAT tokens that need to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"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."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"Burp Suite is affordable."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. We only need to pay for the annual subscription. I rate the pricing five out of ten."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Media Company
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.