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

Kiuwan vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

Kiuwan
Ranking in Application Security Tools
28th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
24th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
8th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.1%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala - PeerSpot reviewer
Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement
Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But 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. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"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."
"Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it."
"One useful function is the ability to send requests to the repeater without making actual requests through the browser, allowing me to modify requests easily."
"It was easy to learn."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
"I have found this solution has more plugins than other competitors which is a benefit. You are able to attach different plugins to the security scan to add features. For example, you can check to see if there are any payment systems that exist on a server, or username and password brute force analysis."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
 

Cons

"Perhaps more languages supported."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"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 development-to-delivery phase."
"There is not much automation in the tool."
"The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution."
"Sometimes the solution can run a little slow."
"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."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"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."
"It would be good if the solution could give us more details about what exactly is defective."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Check with your account manager."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"At $400 or $500 per license paid annually, it is a very cheap tool."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
"We are using the community version, which is free."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Kiuwan?
The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kiuwan?
I'm not entirely sure about the price and business aspects, but I assume Checkmarx might be less expensive. I think Checkmarx might offer more affordable options, especially in its smaller business...
What needs improvement with Kiuwan?
Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran...
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.