We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Ixia BreakingPoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about HCLTech, OpenText, Rapid7 and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)."The accuracy of its scans is great."
"Technical support has been good."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"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."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"The scanner could be better."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"The price could be better."
"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 production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, OWASP Zap, Acunetix and HCL AppScan, whereas Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood, Synopsys Defensics and Qualys Web Application Scanning.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.