We performed a comparison between GitLab and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I have found the most valuable feature is security control. I also like the branching and cloning software."
"Key features allow creation of well-presented Wiki that includes ideas, development, and domains."
"The most valuable feature of GitLab is its convenience. I am able to trace back most of my changes up to a far distance in time and it helps me to analyze and see the older version of the code."
"The most valuable feature of GitLab is the ability to upload scripts and make changes when needed and then reupload them. Additionally, the solution is user-friendly."
"The solution's most valuable feature is that it is compatible with GitHub. The product's integration capabilities are sufficient for our small company of 35 people."
"It is scalable."
"The best thing is that as the developers work on separate tasks, all of the code goes there and the other team members don't have to wait on each other to finish."
"I like that it's easy to deploy our services over GitLab. The customer support is also good with a really active community. You have a lot of support that you can get online with your stack. That is probably one of the benefits of using GitLab. It's also really fast."
"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."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
"The most valuable feature of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is the advanced features, user-friendly interface, and integration with other tools."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"For pentesting scenarios, this is the number one tool. It can capture the request, and there are so many functions that are very good for that. For example, a black box satellite host."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"The most valuable feature is Burp Collaborator."
"There is a need to improve or adopt AI into the ecosystem like a co-pilot, which Microsoft has done with GitHub."
"I believe there's room for improvement in the advanced features, particularly in enhancing the pipeline functionalities."
"Some of the scripts that we encountered in GitLab were not fully functional and threw up errors."
"The solution should again offer an on-premises deployment option."
"GitLab could improve the patch repository. It does not have support for Conan patch version regions. Additionally, better support for Kubernetes deployment is needed as part of the package."
"We are having a few problems integrating with Jira at the moment, which is something that our IT department is investigating."
"I would like to see better integration with project management tools such as Jira."
"The initial setup was quite challenging because it takes some time to understand how to pull out or push the code."
"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."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"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."
"The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"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."
"There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 9th in Application Security Tools with 55 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube and Tekton, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Digital.ai Application Security. See our GitLab vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors, and best Fuzz Testing 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.
