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

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Synopsys Defensics 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

Ixia BreakingPoint
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (35th)
Synopsys Defensics
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Ixia BreakingPoint is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 0.2%, up 0.1% compared to last year.
Synopsys Defensics, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 23.1% mindshare, up 14.9% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sai Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions
Once, when I raised a ticket regarding a hardware or software issue, the solution's support team visited our company to discuss and find out ways to solve the problem. Sometimes, they asked us to send several photos from the back and front end to identify the issue. It was time-consuming as we were occupied with some other testing simultaneously. Instead, it would have been great if they could have visited our company and rectified the problem.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"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 DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"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."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
 

Cons

"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The price could be better."
"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 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."
"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."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is no differentiation in licenses for Breaking Point. For one license, you will get all the features. There is no complexity in that."
"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"The price of the solution is expensive."
"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"Licensing is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Corsa Technology
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: June 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.