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

Defensics Fuzzing vs Ixia BreakingPoint 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 Fuzzing
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
Ixia BreakingPoint
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (34th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 22.4%, up 17.4% compared to last year.
Ixia BreakingPoint, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 0.3% mindshare, up 0.2% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"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."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
 

Cons

"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."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"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 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 integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The price could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of the solution is expensive."
"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
"There is no differentiation in licenses for Breaking Point. For one license, you will get all the features. There is no complexity in that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Media Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Corsa Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Fuzzing vs. GitLab and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.