No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Fortify Application Defender vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

Fortify Application Defender
Ranking in Application Security Tools
33rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Fortify Application Defender is 1.5%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 3.3%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional3.3%
Fortify Application Defender1.5%
Other95.2%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VS
CTO at Abcl
Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines
I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. However, I'm concerned about how it handles an increasing number of lines of code. As the complexity grows, so does the time it takes for the tool to review everything. I want more clarity on how Fortify Application Defender handles multiple threats. We have numerous endpoints, but the tool runs in our pipeline, meaning it operates in the cloud. All our code is configured there, and the tool runs integration testing, unit testing, user testing, and final production code tests. It's a day-to-day experience. It's utilized almost every day as part of our pipeline runs. Each team responsible for integration testing, human testing, user access testing, and preproduction testing runs it whenever they take a build.
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 information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"It is one of those things that once you see it in action, it is pretty impressive."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"This is a great tool and the kind of support it provides is very helpful."
"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"The tool provides complimentary services. It allows you to add a lot of extensions, and you can get extensions quite often. It is quite a flexible application."
"One useful function is the ability to send requests to the repeater without making actual requests through the browser, allowing me to modify requests easily."
"This solution provides a very good mechanism for fixing interval time; for example, we can create a schedule, and the schedule runs on time, PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server and does not shut down the server if it is running, it is quite fast and easy to install as well, and it is also a budget-friendly tool."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"There is no other tool like it. I like the intuitiveness and the plugins that are available."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"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 solution has a great user interface."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"There needs to be better documentation provided."
"The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative."
"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 solution isn't too stable; the fundamentals of it make it difficult to use."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
"Mitigating the issues and low confluence issues needs some improvement. Implementing demand with the ChatGPT under the web solution is an additional feature I would like to see in the next release."
"We wish that the Spider feature would appear in the same shape that it does in previous versions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product’s price is much higher than other tools."
"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."
"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive."
"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."
"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten. It comes as an annual cloud subscription. The tool's pricing is around 50 lakhs."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"This is a value for money product."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
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 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.
What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
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...
 

Also Known As

HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Application Defender vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.