No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Polyspace Code Prover vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

Polyspace Code Prover
Ranking in Application Security Tools
31st
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 3.3%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional3.3%
Polyspace Code Prover1.2%
Other95.5%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2760282 - PeerSpot reviewer
General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.
MH
Penetration Tester & Information Security Expert at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Dedicated browser and repeater have improved my proxy testing and manual vulnerability checks
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something like this because otherwise, nowadays we have to do it manually. Perhaps they can automate it a bit more. Perhaps they could add some automation to things, to see what we do manually, which it has the tools to do manually, and perhaps enable with a click of a button to do things automatically. I'm not too sure which, but I'm sure they can from a product management point of view, do things that we need to do two, three, or four steps manually regarding specific testing. For instance, we want to check something specific if it's this or if it's that. Perhaps to define it once and have it more automatic, perhaps.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"This solution provides a very good mechanism for fixing interval time; for example, we can create a schedule, and the schedule runs on time, PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server and does not shut down the server if it is running, it is quite fast and easy to install as well, and it is also a budget-friendly tool."
"The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"I found the best value, features and documentation in Burp."
"We use the solution for vulnerability assessment in respect of the application and the sites."
"We are mostly using it for scanning the entire website. So, we basically create a script with the entire website and then run it for different injections."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
"It's good testing software."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
 

Cons

"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation."
"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"I am from Brazil. The currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep. It is almost six to one. It would be good if it can be sold in the local currency, and its price is cheaper for us."
"A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment."
"It should provide a better way to integrate with Jenkins so that DAST (dynamic application security testing) can be automated."
"The dashboard of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional could be made more user-friendly."
"There are some memory issues, where the application runs out of memory and crashes."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
"The solution isn't too stable; the fundamentals of it make it difficult to use."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the paid version."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. We only need to pay for the annual subscription. I rate the pricing five out of ten."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"There are multiple versions available of PortSwigger Burp Suite, such as enterprise, commercial, professional, and beginners."
"They should reduce the license cost a little bit. It is $400 per user, and it would be better if they could reduce the licensing fee."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
35%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise35
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two ...
What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?
It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.
What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?
We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.
What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Polyspace Code Prover vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.