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."The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The solution is scalable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"The interface is easy to use."
"The API is exceptional."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"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."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"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."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 8 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th 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, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Veracode. 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.
