No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Defensics Protocol 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 Protocol Fuzzing
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
4th
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
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Fuzz Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is 16.0%, down from 25.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 33.6%, up from 29.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fuzz Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional33.6%
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing16.0%
Other50.4%
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies
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.
MH
Penetration Tester & Information Security Expert at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Dedicated browser and repeater have improved my proxy testing and manual vulnerability checks
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something like this because otherwise, nowadays we have to do it manually. Perhaps they can automate it a bit more. Perhaps they could add some automation to things, to see what we do manually, which it has the tools to do manually, and perhaps enable with a click of a button to do things automatically. I'm not too sure which, but I'm sure they can from a product management point of view, do things that we need to do two, three, or four steps manually regarding specific testing. For instance, we want to check something specific if it's this or if it's that. Perhaps to define it once and have it more automatic, perhaps.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"ROI was 100%. Since there are no product suites available that provide the level of testing available with Codenomicon, the development, quality and security assurance departments know that the investment was correct."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"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."
"Simple and straightforward GUI."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"The stability of this product is great; we tested it under multiple constraints and even on cloud services it is absolutely stable."
"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, and because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"I have found this solution has more plugins than other competitors which is a benefit."
"The feature that we have found most valuable is that it comes with pre-set configurations, with a set of predefined options where you can pick one and start scanning, and we also have the option of creating our own configurations, such as how often the applications need to be scanned, along with good reporting and dashboards that integrate well with other task management applications we are using."
"The most valuable feature of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is the Burp Intruder tool."
"This solution provides a very good mechanism for fixing interval time; for example, we can create a schedule, and the schedule runs on time, PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server and does not shut down the server if it is running, it is quite fast and easy to install as well, and it is also a budget-friendly tool."
"It offers flexibility, macros, and features to reduce the effort required for authenticated sessions."
"The solution helps to find different security issues, and it helps identify many, many security issues quickly, and that's what makes it such a useful tool."
"Their flagship feature would be the active scanner, which carries out an automated look up of any web vulnerabilities reflecting over to one of the main compliance standards, like OWASP, and provides an accurate security audit for their web applications."
"I found the best value, features and documentation in Burp."
 

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."
"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."
"It requires understanding the Defensics protocol."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"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."
"You can't implement proprietary ciphering algorithms, nor can you modify protocol models if you need to test customized public protocols."
"I would like to see the return of the spider mechanism instead of the crawling feature. Burp Suite's earlier version 1.7 had an excellent spider option, and it would be beneficial if Burp incorporated those features into the current version. The crawling techniques used in the current version are not as efficient as those used in earlier versions."
"The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad."
"In general, there's not much to complain about but the stability of the tool is not good enough."
"The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
"The scanner and crawler need to be improved."
"If your application uses multi-factor authentication, registration management cannot be automated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"PortSwigger is a bit expensive."
"Pricing is not very high. It was around $200."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise35
 

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 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.
What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something...
 

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 Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.