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

Defensics Protocol 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 Protocol Fuzzing
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
4th
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
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (9th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Fuzz Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is 18.3%, down from 21.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 32.7%, up from 31.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional32.7%
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing18.3%
Other49.0%
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies
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.
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 is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"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 have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"It offers flexibility, macros, and features to reduce the effort required for authenticated sessions."
"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."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."
"The Repeater and the BApp extensions are particularly useful. Certain extensions, such as the Active Scan extensions and the Autoracer extension, are very good."
"The most valuable feature of Burp Suite Professional is its ability to schedule tasks for scanning websites, which helps in performing regular checks of IP addresses."
 

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 solution’s pricing could be improved."
"We wish that the Spider feature would appear in the same shape that it does in previous versions."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"The tool is very expensive."
"Sometimes the solution can run a little slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"The platform's pricing is reasonable."
"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
"It has a yearly license. I am satisfied with its price."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"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 price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Retailer
7%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

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

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 Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.