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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Software Risk Manager ASPM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
Software Risk Manager ASPM
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
28th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (23rd), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.7%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Software Risk Manager ASPM is 1.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional2.7%
Software Risk Manager ASPM1.2%
Other96.1%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Saravanan_Radhakrishnan - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies
Facilitates continuous assessment of applications, covering both static and dynamic security aspects
Code Dx lacks one aspect, the dynamic security part, known as DAST. It's not an on-premise solution; it's in the cloud now. There are compliance standards and data standards where the customer might need to have the data on-premises for dynamic security testing. So that is one shortfall. An area of improvement could be developing an on-premise DAST solution. The current one is a complete cloud-based solution, and that can be one of the areas of improvement.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The crawling capability is excellent."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional has an intercept tab that helps us to scan our APIs, set the response, and request errors."
"It is a time-saver application."
"The solution is very user-friendly, and the way they do the research and keep their profile up to date is great, as they identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"Unearthing these issues really helps me build confidence and relationships with clients on two counts."
"The solution scans web applications and supports APIs, which are the main features I really like."
"We found PortSwigger to be the best match for our business."
"The customers were looking for something around static security and dynamic security, and in all those areas, they were looking for an industry leader with a proven solution. Synopsys is a Gartner leader, so I position this particular technology for the technical pre-sales part of it."
 

Cons

"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual."
"BurpSuite has some issues regarding authentication with OAT tokens that need to be improved."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"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."
"The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad."
"We've faced lots of challenges, including slowing down of the tool, and a lot of error messages, sometimes because of the interface."
"Spidering large websites can use a lot of memory and might result in a crash on systems with lower RAM."
"The initial setup is a bit challenging because things are not easy. It needs a lot of technology adaptability plus the customer's environment-specific use cases."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is neither cheap nor expensive."
"The pricing of the solution is cost-effective and is best suited for small and medium-sized businesses."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"It has a yearly license. I am satisfied with its price."
"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."
"We are using the community version, which is free."
"They should reduce the license cost a little bit. It is $400 per user, and it would be better if they could reduce the licensing fee."
"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"It is more of an enterprise solution for budget-conscious customers. So, it's moderately priced. It's not for everybody."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
16%
University
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Burp
Code Dx
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Discover why companies like: CGI said, "Synopsys and Software Risk Manager have provided the results we’re looking for".
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.