Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Fuzz Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (9th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Fuzz Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is 18.3%, down from 21.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 32.7%, up from 31.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional32.7%
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing18.3%
Other49.0%
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.
MH
Penetration Tester & Information Security Expert at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Dedicated browser and repeater have improved my proxy testing and manual vulnerability checks
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something like this because otherwise, nowadays we have to do it manually. Perhaps they can automate it a bit more. Perhaps they could add some automation to things, to see what we do manually, which it has the tools to do manually, and perhaps enable with a click of a button to do things automatically. I'm not too sure which, but I'm sure they can from a product management point of view, do things that we need to do two, three, or four steps manually regarding specific testing. For instance, we want to check something specific if it's this or if it's that. Perhaps to define it once and have it more automatic, perhaps.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"There is no other tool like it. I like the intuitiveness and the plugins that are available."
"I have found the best features to be the performance and there are a lot of additional plugins available."
"The most valuable feature is Burp Collaborator."
"It was easy to learn."
"The technical support from PortSwigger is excellent, managing response time and quality efficiently without any issues."
"The solution has a great user interface."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"It offers flexibility, macros, and features to reduce the effort required for authenticated sessions."
 

Cons

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"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."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
"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."
"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."
"The tool is very expensive."
"Integration is a big problem."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"It is expensive for us in Brazil because the currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep."
"This solution requires a license. It is expensive but you receive a lot of functionality for the price."
"We are using the community version, which is free."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is expensive compared to other tools."
"This is a value for money product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Retailer
7%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise35
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.