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."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"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."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The price could be better."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"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."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
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.