We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"The interface is easy to use."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"The solution is scalable."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"The price could be better."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The product reporting could be improved."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 8 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Veracode. See our Ixia BreakingPoint vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
