We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and OWASP Zap 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."The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"The interface is easy to use."
"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"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."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"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."
"The price could be better."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 37 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Veracode. See our Ixia BreakingPoint vs. OWASP Zap 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.
