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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Seeker 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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (9th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
Seeker
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (19th), Mobile Threat Defense (14th), API Security (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Seeker aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 2.0%, up 2.0% compared to last year.
Seeker, on the other hand, focuses on Internet Security, holds 0.0% mindshare.
Application Security Tools
Internet Security
 

Featured Reviews

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.
San K - PeerSpot reviewer
More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities
One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need. The purposes for which applications are designed may differ in practice in the industry, and because of this, there will always be tools that sometimes report false positives. Thus, there should be some means with which I can customize the way that Seeker learns about our applications, possibly by using some kind of AI / ML capability within the tool that will automatically reduce the number of false positives that we get as we use the tool over time. Obviously, when we first start using the scanning tool there will be false positives, but as it keeps going and as I keep using the tool, there should be a period of time where either the application can learn how to ignore false positives, or I can customize it do so. Adding this type of functionality would definitely prevent future issues when it comes to reporting false positives, and this is a key area that we have already asked the vendor to improve on, in general. On a different note, there is one feature that isn't completely available right now where you can integrate Seeker with an open-source vulnerability scanner or composition analysis tool such as Black Duck. I would very much like this capability to be available to us out-of-the-box, so that we can easily integrate with tools like Black Duck in such a way that any open source components that are used in the front-end are easily identified. I think this would be a huge plus for Seeker. Another feature within Seeker which could benefit from improvement is active verification, which lets you actively verify a vulnerability. This feature currently doesn't work in certain applications, particularly in scenarios where you have requested tokens. When we bought the tool, we didn't realize this and we were not told about it by the vendor, so initially it was a big challenge for us to overcome it and properly begin our deployment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"I personally love its capability to automatically and accurately detect vulnerabilities. So, I would say it is the Burp scanner that is THE most powerful, valuable, and an awesome feature."
"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 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."
"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."
"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
 

Cons

"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot."
"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 pricing of the solution is quite high."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
"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."
"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
"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."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"It is expensive for us in Brazil because the currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep."
"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
842,651 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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 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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Burp
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: March 2025.
842,651 professionals have used our research since 2012.