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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Software Risk Manager ASPM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
Software Risk Manager ASPM
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
28th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (24th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 3.0%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Software Risk Manager ASPM is 1.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional3.0%
Software Risk Manager ASPM1.3%
Other95.7%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Saravanan_Radhakrishnan - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies
Facilitates continuous assessment of applications, covering both static and dynamic security aspects
Code Dx lacks one aspect, the dynamic security part, known as DAST. It's not an on-premise solution; it's in the cloud now. There are compliance standards and data standards where the customer might need to have the data on-premises for dynamic security testing. So that is one shortfall. An area of improvement could be developing an on-premise DAST solution. The current one is a complete cloud-based solution, and that can be one of the areas of improvement.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Unearthing these issues really helps me build confidence and relationships with clients on two counts."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"Enables automation of different tasks such as authorization testing."
"The reporting part is the most valuable. It also has very good features. We use almost all of the features for different kinds of customers and needs."
"It helps in API testing, where manual intervention was previously necessary for each payload."
"The feature that we have found most valuable is that it comes with pre-set configurations, with a set of predefined options where you can pick one and start scanning, and we also have the option of creating our own configurations, such as how often the applications need to be scanned, along with good reporting and dashboards that integrate well with other task management applications we are using."
"I found the best value, features and documentation in Burp."
"The customers were looking for something around static security and dynamic security, and in all those areas, they were looking for an industry leader with a proven solution. Synopsys is a Gartner leader, so I position this particular technology for the technical pre-sales part of it."
 

Cons

"The pricing of the solution is quite high."
"There are some memory issues, where the application runs out of memory and crashes."
"Improvement should be done as per the requirements of customers."
"The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot."
"The initial setup was somewhat complex, to be honest."
"Scanning APIs using PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional takes a lot of time."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"Scanning needs to be improved in enterprise and professional versions."
"The initial setup is a bit challenging because things are not easy. It needs a lot of technology adaptability plus the customer's environment-specific use cases."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Burp Suite is affordable."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"PortSwigger is a bit expensive."
"The platform's pricing is reasonable."
"Pricing is not very high. It was around $200."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"The pricing of the solution is cost-effective and is best suited for small and medium-sized businesses."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"It is more of an enterprise solution for budget-conscious customers. So, it's moderately priced. It's not for everybody."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
14%
University
10%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise35
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Burp
Code Dx
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Discover why companies like: CGI said, "Synopsys and Software Risk Manager have provided the results we’re looking for".
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: May 2026.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.