We performed a comparison between PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Rapid7 InsightAppSec based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional has an intercept tab that helps us to scan our APIs, set the response, and request errors."
"The most valuable feature of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is the advanced features, user-friendly interface, and integration with other tools."
"Enables automation of different tasks such as authorization testing."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"The initial setup is simple."
"You have various attack modules, and you also have the Attack Replay feature for the attack sequence. You can reproduce an attack and see it. That is a very good feature I noticed in this solution. It helps developers as well."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"It is a very robust solution."
"The product’s most valuable feature is UI. It is easy to manage and find vulnerabilities in the application."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"The initial setup for us was easy enough. We didn't face too many issues. Deployment took maybe 30 minutes. It's quite quick and doesn't cause too much trouble at the outset."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I would like to see the return of the spider mechanism instead of the crawling feature. Burp Suite's earlier version 1.7 had an excellent spider option, and it would be beneficial if Burp incorporated those features into the current version. The crawling techniques used in the current version are not as efficient as those used in earlier versions."
"I need the solution to be more user-friendly. The solution needs to be user-friendly."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"They should add more features. I would like to see them do a little more on static analysis and also interactivity analysis. Currently, it does very basic static analysis. It could do a little more static analysis, which is something that would help. A lot more interactivity analysis should also be there. It should basically look at security during interactivity."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
"The interface should be a little bit easier to manage. Sometimes, the logic that they use is kind of strange. They need to work a little bit more on their interface to make it more understandable. The interface is the only problem. I'm using Rapid7, which is very intuitive. There are other applications available in the market with a better interface. They can include more techniques or options to test different types of security because the templates are limited. It would be great to see them follow the MITRE ATT&CK framework or what is there in tools like Veracode and Synopsys."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"The reporting is definitely an aspect of the solution that's in need of some work. We found that we'd try to use widgets, but often getting them to work for us wasn't very clear. They need to be more user friendly or offer better instructions."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"In the future, if they can have integration with a lot of ticketing systems then it would be amazing."
"When you add new projects for the same product, it either duplicates or replaces the scan configuration. If I run a scan for the same product with a different scan configuration, it should keep the previous scan configuration and not replace it with the new scan configuration. It should just add the new scan configuration. That would be helpful. They do keep the results as it is, but the scan configuration keeps changing. For example, I have set a scan configuration to a full scan, and next week, I want to run a new scan for the same product with some changes or new functionalities. I want to run a partial scan. Currently, if I change the scan configuration to partial, it changes the old one also to partial. That should be improved."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 9th in Application Security Tools with 55 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and GitLab, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix and Veracode. See our PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.