AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Developer platform › DAST › Bright Security vs Burp Suite
Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition

Bright Security vs Burp Suite

Two of fourteen models named Bright Security first on the direct prompt; zero named Burp Suite. Bright Security was named by eight of the fourteen models and Burp Suite by thirteen and Bright Security carries 11 labels and Burp Suite 45, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Bright Security

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

Burp Suite

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share8%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels1145A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Bright Security reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Invicti was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. OWASP ZAP vs Bright Security · OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite · Invicti vs Bright Security

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the dynamic application security testing page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Bright SecurityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsBurp Suite
Direct20
Paraphrase21
Comparative031 against Burp Suite
Budget-constrained002 against Burp Suite
Scale-constrained001 against Burp Suite
Negative014 against Burp Suite
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Bright Security and Burp Suite stood in it.
ModelDirectBSBSParaphraseBSBSComparativeBSBSBudget-constrainedBSBSScale-constrainedBSBSNegativeBSBS
Claude Haiku 4.5BSBSBSBS
GPT-5.4 miniBSBSBSBS
Gemini 3.5 FlashBSBSBSBS
Perplexity SonarBSBS
Grok 4.1 FastBSBSBS
Mistral SmallBSBSBS
DeepSeek V4 FlashBSBSBSBS
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 FlashBSBSBS
Kimi K2BSBSBSBSBS
GLM 4.7 FlashXBSBSBSBS
MiniMax M2.5BSBSBSBSBS
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30BBSBSBSBS
BS Bright SecurityBS Burp SuiteBS first choiceBS named as an alternativeBS argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Bright Security on the left and Burp Suite on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Bright Security and Burp Suite stood in it.

Bright Security first, Burp Suite not the choice

2 of 14 modelsBurp Suite was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
Kimi K2Bright Security, StackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
GPT-5.4 miniAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: Burp Suite
MiniMax M2.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP

Neither was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Intruder, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Gemini 3.5 FlashEscape alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security
Mistral SmallBurp Suite Enterprise Edition, Intruder alternatives: Aikido Security
DeepSeek V4 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Invicti
Llama 4 MaverickBurp Suite Enterprise Edition alternatives: Aikido Security, AppCheck, Intruder
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Invicti
GLM 4.7 FlashXStackHawk alternatives: OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
GPT-6 LunaInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, StackHawk

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
Bright Security0%#– of 12
Burp Suite0%#11 of 12
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Bright Security leads by six points.
Bright Security8%#5 of 11
Burp Suite2%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Burp Suite leads at enterprise.
Burp Suite4%#5 of 14
Bright Security0%#13 of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Bright Security

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“For most mid-sized B2B companies, I'd recommend Bright Security as the primary choice.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Bright Security is the strongest fit for many mid-market B2B teams” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“I would recommend Acunetix or Bright Security as top choices” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about Burp Suite

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“The Verdict: Avoid for automated scanning. Use only for manual penetration testing.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Burp Suite Enterprise has complex setup and configuration requirements that often need dedicated security expertise” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Extremely manual and limited automation in the free version; Pro is better but still developer/pentester-focused.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“commercial tools like Burp Suite Professional and Invicti catch more vulnerability types than open-source alternatives, with Burp Suite achieving ~29% coverage of critical vulnerabilities” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd generally recommend Burp Suite Professional if you want the best balance of capability, usability, and web-app-focused coverage” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Burp Suite Professional (PortSwigger): Best for manual testing + automated scanning hybrid. Excellent SPA support.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs Burp SuiteInvicti vs Bright SecurityInvicti vs Burp SuiteAcunetix vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs Burp SuiteStackHawk vs Bright SecurityStackHawk vs Burp SuiteBright Security vs IntruderBright Security vs Aikido SecurityIntruder vs Burp SuiteBurp Suite vs Aikido SecurityAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DAST standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.