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."It is a scalable solution."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The price could be better."
"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."
"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 integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"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."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"There are too many false positives."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
"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."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
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.