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
7.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (9th), 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 26.4%, down 33.5% compared to last year.
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 2.0% mindshare, down 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

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"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."
"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."
"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The Repeater and the BApp extensions are particularly useful. Certain extensions, such as the Active Scan extensions and the Autoracer extension, are very good."
"You can scan any number of applications and it updates its database."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"It was easy to learn."
"The product has a good learning hub."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"The initial setup was complex."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"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."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."
"BurpSuite has some issues regarding authentication with OAT tokens that need to be improved."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
"I would like to see the return of the spider mechanism instead of the crawling feature. Burp Suite's earlier version 1.7 had an excellent spider option, and it would be beneficial if Burp incorporated those features into the current version. The crawling techniques used in the current version are not as efficient as those used in earlier versions."
"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"There needs to be better documentation provided. Currently, we need to buy books, or we need to review online some use cases from other professionals who have been using the solution to find out their experience. It is not easy to find out how to properly do a security assessment."
"The price could be better. The rest is fine."
"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."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"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."
"This solution is very expensive."
"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."
"The price is okay."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"At $400 or $500 per license paid annually, it is a very cheap tool."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"PortSwigger is a bit expensive."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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?
The pricing for Burp Suite Professional is not very high, however, it could be more flexible for clients.
 

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.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.