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
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (8th), 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 23.9%, down 32.6% compared to last year.
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 2.0% mindshare, up 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

"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"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."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"Technical support has been good."
"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."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
"It offers very good accuracy. You can trust the results."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
"The product has a good learning hub."
"It helps in API testing, where manual intervention was previously necessary for each payload."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"With the Extender Tab, if you know how to code then you can create a plugin and add it to Burp."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
 

Cons

"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"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."
"It should provide a better way to integrate with Jenkins so that DAST (dynamic application security testing) can be automated."
"Integration is a big problem."
"The price could be better. The rest is fine."
"The one feature that I would like to see in Burp is active scanning of REST based web services. A lot of organizations are providing APIs to access their services to support different business models like SaaS. Scanning these APIs is still a challenge for many security product companies."
"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."
"A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"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."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The price is okay."
"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."
"PortSwigger is a bit expensive."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"It is expensive for us in Brazil because the currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
"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.
842,767 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
12%
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?
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?
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 Fortify WebInspect vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.
842,767 professionals have used our research since 2012.