"It is a time-saver application."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is one of the best user-friendly solutions for getting the proxy set up."
"I am impressed with the tool's detailed analysis for penetration testing. AppScan can give only visibility, but it can't do the PT part. But the PortSwigger Burp Application can do both, and it gives much more visibility on the PT rating."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"It's good testing software."
"We are mostly using it for scanning the entire website. So, we basically create a script with the entire website and then run it for different injections."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"One thing that is not up to the mark in PortSwigger is web application testing. I found some issues with its performance and reporting. They should work on these and give us a better outcome."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration."
"The scanner and crawler need to be improved."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
"In the Professional version, we cannot link it with the CI/CD process."
"If your application uses multi-factor authentication, registration management cannot be automated."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 1st in Fuzz Testing Tools with 55 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6, while Synopsys Defensics 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 Synopsys Defensics writes "Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false". PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Qualys Web Application Scanning, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Fortify on Demand, Invicti and Checkmarx One.
See our list of best Fuzz Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Fuzz Testing 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.