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

Defensics Fuzzing vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Fuzz Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Defensics Fuzzing is 22.4%, up from 17.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 32.8%, up from 24.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

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.
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

"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."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"You can scan any number of applications and it updates its database."
"The solution scans web applications and supports APIs, which are the main features I really like."
"I find the attack model quite amazing, where I can write my scripts and load my scripts as well, which helps quite a bit. All the active scanning that it can do is also quite a lot helpful. It speeds up our vulnerability assessment and penetration testing. Right now, I am enjoying its in-browser, which also helps quite a bit. I'm always confused about setting up some proxy, but it really is the big solution we all want."
""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.""
"The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications."
"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."
"It is useful for scanning and tracing activities."
 

Cons

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"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."
"One area for improvement is the integrated browser, Chromium. Single Sign-On (SSO) methods like Microsoft authentication login sometimes fail and show errors. As a workaround, I have to use a different browser, such as Firefox, to log in and make Burp work."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"There should be a heads up display like the one available in OWASP Zap."
"It should provide a better way to integrate with Jenkins so that DAST (dynamic application security testing) can be automated."
"Integration is a big problem."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"The one feature that I would like to see in Burp is active scanning of REST based web services. A lot of organizations are providing APIs to access their services to support different business models like SaaS. Scanning these APIs is still a challenge for many security product companies."
"The Iran market does not have after-sales support. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional needs to provide after-sales support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"The platform's pricing is reasonable."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. We only need to pay for the annual subscription. I rate the pricing five out of ten."
"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."
"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 Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 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%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.