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

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Veracode comparison

 

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

Ixia BreakingPoint
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
31st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Container Security (10th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Ixia BreakingPoint is 0.7%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.9%, down from 9.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.9%
Ixia BreakingPoint0.7%
Other94.4%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Prakarn Wungpichayssuk - PeerSpot reviewer
ManBusiness Directorager at CSG SOLUTION
Useful simulated attack database, high availability, but integration could improve
We are using Ixia BreakingPoint for security testing by generating traffic The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks. The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint. The vendor should provide a portal for webinars. I have…
reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration
Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"What Ixia BreakingPoint brings to the end customer is the use case."
"The most important feature is the static scanning analysis, and the reason is that it can tell us vulnerability in that code, right before we go ahead and push something to production or provide something to a client... Dynamic scanning actually hits our Web applications, to try to detect any well known Web application vulnerabilities as well."
"The valuable features are the static analysis and the dynamic analysis."
"What's important for me, from Veracode, is the all-in-one metrics location. I can see where everything is across the entire portfolio of applications I have in this program, and I can report out on it."
"We use Veracode static analysis during development to eliminate vulnerability issues"
"Using an automated tool brings cost reduction and more security."
"It has allowed us to integrate with it through automated processes, which saves us a lot of time and effort, and our customers benefited from the added application security assurance of our software, as they have been able to identify OWASP top-10 application vulnerabilities without a manual tester."
"I would give Veracode a nine out of 10 because it scales incredibly well, they have very qualified people working there who are able to clearly articulate what the problems are when they are talking in a remediation or consultation call."
"The security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics."
 

Cons

"The price could be better."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved, to get closer to being accurate in what a real user would do."
"Currently BPS VE's REST API was just developed (some specific functionalities are implemented) and can be improved for better control over the tool using scripts, which help in test automation."
"The SSL simulation is realistic but some kinds of tests work imperfectly."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"The flash GUI has room for improvement."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"I would like Veracode to add more language support."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"When Veracode updates the pool of tests and security checks, it could be a little more transparent about what it is releasing. It's not clear what it's adding. They do thousands of checks, and when they add more, there aren't many details about what the new tests are doing."
"We are testing Veracode's software composition analysis, but we're having trouble integrating it with SVN. It works out of the box when you use Git but doesn't work as well with other tools like SVN. It's more geared toward Git"
"We have approximately 900 people using the solution. The solution is scalable, but there is a high cost attached to it."
"The language version support could be improved."
"Veracode Static Analysis could improve the terminology. For example, I do not know what the sandbox scan does."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"There is no differentiation in licenses for Breaking Point. For one license, you will get all the features. There is no complexity in that."
"The price of the solution is expensive."
"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"The solution is expensive."
"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
"They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works."
"From a cost perspective, it seems okay, although we will probably evaluate alternatives next time it's up for renewal because for us, it's a relatively high cost, and we want to make sure that we are using our resources most appropriately."
"Pricing seems fair for what is offered, and licensing has been no problem. All developers are able to get the access they need."
"Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive."
"I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms."
"For enterprises, Veracode has done a fairly good job, but its pricing is not suitable for startups. The microservice distributed architecture for a startup is very small. I had to do a lot of discussions on the pricing initially. I previously worked in an enterprise organization where I used Veracode, and that's how I got to know about Veracode, but that was a big organization with more than a thousand employees. So, the cost is very different for them because the size of the application is different. Its pricing makes sense there, but when we try to onboard this solution for the startup ecosystem, pricing is not friendly. Because I knew the product and I knew its value, I onboarded it, but I don't think any other startup at our scale will onboard it."
"When I looked at the pricing, it was definitely a value. In terms of the service and what it's checking, the cost was very reasonable, particularly because we could have multiple code bases as part of a project."
"Pricing/licensing is complicated."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Corsa Technology
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Ixia BreakingPoint vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.