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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs Polyspace Code Prover 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 Protocol Fuzzing
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing and Polyspace Code Prover aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 23.3%, up 19.3% compared to last year.
Polyspace Code Prover, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.4% mindshare, up 1.0% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing23.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional31.5%
GitLab22.6%
Other22.599999999999994%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polyspace Code Prover1.4%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)20.5%
Checkmarx One10.4%
Other67.7%
Application Security 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.
Pradeep Panchakarla - PeerSpot reviewer
A reliable solution that provides excellent features and detects memory corruption
The run time analysis process must be improved. If we do not run with the main loop, it generates its own main and doesn’t allow developers to modify the execution sequences. The solution must provide more flexibility to the developers to manipulate the runtime analysis tools. The developer must be allowed to modify the main sequence. It will be very easy for them to test their use cases. Otherwise, Polyspace generates a random main file and executes all the functions randomly.

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."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
6%
Manufacturing Company
39%
Computer Software Company
10%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
5%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?
When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts,...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation. It require support. There could be an issue with range propag...
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center