We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and Kiuwan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like that we can test cloud applications."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"I like that I can scan the code without sending it to the Kiuwan cloud. I can do it locally on my device. When the local analyzer finishes, the results display on the dashboard in the cloud. It's essential for security purposes to be able to scan my code locally."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"The price could be better."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 23 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Ixia BreakingPoint vs. Kiuwan report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.