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

Onapsis 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

Onapsis
Ranking in Application Security Tools
35th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (7th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Onapsis is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 3.4%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional3.4%
Onapsis0.9%
Other95.7%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user19113 - PeerSpot reviewer
SAP Security Consulting Engineer at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
It checks for and reports vulnerabilities on all SAP systems at the OS, DB and SAP levels.
I really love how Onapsis X1 is able to check SAP for threats; the reporting was something I felt could be improved. It could be a little easier to use and to publish for consumption with a larger audience. Currently, it takes some background jobs and additional work to get them published. It was difficult to get interactive reports to the different levels of the business. I would have to download them and send them out, or save them on my SharePoint site and send out a weekly link. In the version of the product I was usingת I had to log into the X1 system directly to get to the reports. Reporting would be used by several different areas of the organizationת many of whom would be at the director and executive levels. It would not make sense to have them log directly into the tool to look at these reports. Add to this that there was only one ID that could be used to log in and view the reports. To solve this problemת I had to run all of the different reports; executive summary down to detailed analysis and then export them out to my security team SharePoint site. To automate this processת a batch script was created to run after the X1 analyzed the systems. The script would pull the reports and place them in the SharePoint site automatically, but it was a bit of a hassle to get set up.
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

"It has hardened our SAP system by providing details of vulnerabilities in our SAP landscape."
"Currently, we're trying to import the solution to implement it to other applications for our website."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is superior in quite a few options."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
"I find the attack model quite amazing, where I can write my scripts and load my scripts as well, which helps quite a bit."
"This solution has helped our company in many ways."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"It is a time-saver application."
"I rate PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional ten points out of ten."
 

Cons

"Reporting was something I felt could be improved. It could be a little easier to use and to publish for consumption with a larger audience."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"It should provide a better way to integrate with Jenkins so that DAST (dynamic application security testing) can be automated."
"The Iran market does not have after-sales support. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional needs to provide after-sales support."
"There are some memory issues, where the application runs out of memory and crashes."
"Scanning APIs using PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional takes a lot of time."
"It would be beneficial to have privileged access management as a part of Burp Suite Professional."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is neither cheap nor expensive."
"We are using the community version, which is free."
"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."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
"The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Energy/Utilities Company
16%
Construction Company
13%
University
13%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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 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

No data available
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sony, US Army, Westinghouse, AXA. Galicia, Daimler, Roche, Levi's, Siemens, ABB, KPMG, Mercardo Libre, Verizon, Bacardi, Adgas, Sicpa, Whirlpool, Leaseplan
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: June 2026.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.