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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing 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

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (10th)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 22.2%, down 30.5% compared to last year.
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 2.2% mindshare, up 1.8% 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

"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"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."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"The initial setup is simple."
"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."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"I rate PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional ten points out of ten."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"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 most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"The Repeater and the BApp extensions are particularly useful. Certain extensions, such as the Active Scan extensions and the Autoracer extension, are very good."
 

Cons

"We have had a problem with authentification."
"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."
"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."
"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."
"The scanner could be better."
"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."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"The initial setup was complex."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"Sometimes the solution can run a little slow."
"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."
"Improvement should be done as per the requirements of customers."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."
"It would be beneficial to have privileged access management as a part of Burp Suite Professional."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is okay."
"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."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is expensive compared to other tools."
"The platform's pricing is reasonable."
"Pricing is not very high. It was around $200."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. We only need to pay for the annual subscription. I rate the pricing five out of ten."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Government
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
11%
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?
The price of Fortify WebInspect is high, with the cost depending on the number of virtual users. It is approximately 25% higher than other solutions.
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate. The cost of the license depends on the number of virtual users and, in comparison to...
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 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.