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

Fortify WebInspect 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

Fortify WebInspect
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (7th)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (8th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. Fortify WebInspect is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 23.9%, down 32.6% compared to last year.
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 2.0% mindshare, up 2.0% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Navin N - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution
We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this.  Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."
"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"Technical support has been good."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"For pentesting scenarios, this is the number one tool. It can capture the request, and there are so many functions that are very good for that. For example, a black box satellite host."
"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."
"There is no other tool like it. I like the intuitiveness and the plugins that are available."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."
"The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications."
"I have found the best features to be the performance and there are a lot of additional plugins available."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
 

Cons

"The initial setup was complex."
"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"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."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
"The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad."
"The tool is very expensive."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"One area for improvement is the integrated browser, Chromium. Single Sign-On (SSO) methods like Microsoft authentication login sometimes fail and show errors. As a workaround, I have to use a different browser, such as Firefox, to log in and make Burp work."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is very expensive."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution requires a license. It is expensive but you receive a lot of functionality for the price."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"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."
"Pricing is not very high. It was around $200."
"This is a value for money product."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is expensive compared to other tools."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?
The solution's technical support was very helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
Fortify WebInspect can be a bit expensive. However, considering its stability and reliability in meeting current standards, the cost is justified. Still, making the cost more affordable for multipl...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker. Specifically, being able to scan a particular flow or part of an application more rapidly would be beneficial. Additionally, the cost of...
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?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aaron's
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify WebInspect vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.