We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The price could be better."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"The solution is unable to customize reports."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 8 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional. See our Ixia BreakingPoint vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.