I have used Burp Suite Professional since 2017. It is the industry standard for web application testing. Every pentester I know uses it. Every training course teaches it. Every certification expects it.
I am not switching away from Burp entirely. But six months ago I started using Caido as my primary intercepting proxy, and I reach for Burp only when I need a specific extension that does not exist in Caido yet.
Caido is the web security tool I would have designed if I had the skills to build it. It is fast, native, and respects the way I actually work.
Why I started looking
Burp Suite is a Java application. In 2026, that means it consumes 2-4 GB of RAM at baseline, takes 15-30 seconds to start, and has a GUI that feels like it was designed for a 2008 monitor resolution. The performance degrades as your project grows. By the end of a multi-day assessment with a large sitemap, Burp is sluggish. Tabs lag. Searches crawl. The experience is tolerable, not good.
I accepted this for years because there was no alternative. ZAP (OWASP ZAP) exists, but it has its own quirks and never matched Burp’s extension ecosystem. Other proxies came and went without gaining traction.
Caido launched its public beta in 2023 and reached general availability in 2024. It is written in Rust with a web-based UI. The performance gap is not incremental. It is a different class of tool.
What stands out
Speed. Caido starts in under two seconds. The interceptor engages instantly. Searching across thousands of captured requests is real-time. Filtering, sorting, and replaying requests feels like working with a modern web application, because it is one. After years of waiting for Burp to index, this alone justified the switch.
The replay workflow. Burp’s Repeater is functional but clunky. Tabs accumulate. Organizing them requires manual naming. Comparing responses across modified requests is awkward.
Caido’s replay feature lets me create sequences, send modified requests, and compare responses side by side. The diff view highlights exactly what changed between two responses. When I am testing authorization bypasses or parameter manipulation, this comparison workflow cuts my time in half.
HTTPQL. Caido has a query language for filtering captured traffic. Instead of clicking through Burp’s filter UI, I type queries like req.method = "POST" AND res.code = 200 AND req.path LIKE "/api/*". It is SQL-like, intuitive, and far more expressive than Burp’s scope and filter system. Once you start filtering traffic with a query language, going back to checkbox filters feels primitive.
Automation. Caido supports workflow automation through its plugin system. I wrote a plugin that automatically tests every API endpoint for IDOR by replaying requests with a different user’s session token and comparing response bodies. In Burp, this required chaining a custom extension with Autorize and manual configuration. In Caido, it is a self-contained workflow definition.
Resource usage. Caido uses 200-400 MB of RAM for a typical assessment. Burp uses 2-4 GB. On a laptop with 16 GB of RAM running a VM, a browser, and a dozen terminal sessions, that difference matters. Caido is the first proxy I have used that does not force me to close other applications during an assessment.
What Burp still does better
Extensions. Burp’s extension ecosystem is massive. Autorize, Param Miner, Active Scan++, JWT Editor, and hundreds of others. Many of these have no Caido equivalent yet. When I need a specialized extension for a specific vulnerability class, I still open Burp.
Active scanner. Burp’s active scanner, while noisy, catches things. Caido’s active testing capabilities are growing but not yet at Burp’s level for automated vulnerability discovery. For compliance-driven assessments where the client expects an automated scan report, Burp is still the tool.
Industry acceptance. Some clients and regulatory frameworks expect Burp in the toolchain. Pentest reports that reference Burp carry implicit credibility. This is changing as Caido gains recognition, but it is a real consideration for consulting work.
My current setup
I run both. Caido is my default proxy for interception, replay, manual testing, and traffic analysis. When I need a specific Burp extension or the active scanner, I route traffic through Burp for that portion of the assessment.
Over the past six months, the split has been roughly 70% Caido, 30% Burp. That ratio shifts more toward Caido with each release as the plugin ecosystem matures.
The pricing
Caido has a free tier that covers basic interception and replay. The Pro tier is significantly cheaper than Burp (check their current pricing as it evolves). Burp Suite Professional is $449 for the first year, $399 for renewals.
For pentesters paying for their own tools, the price difference is significant. Caido Pro covers every feature I use daily. Burp Pro’s price is justified only by the extension ecosystem and active scanner, which I use perhaps 30% of the time.
Caido has a growing but still small user base compared to Burp. Most pentesters I talk to assumed it was too early-stage to use seriously. That was true in 2023. Not in 2026.
The tool is stable, fast, actively developed, and better than Burp for the core workflow of intercepting, analyzing, and replaying HTTP traffic. The team ships updates frequently and the roadmap is public.
If you test web applications and you have not tried Caido, download it and use it for one assessment. The speed difference will hit you immediately. The workflow improvements take a week to appreciate. After that, opening Burp feels like going back to dial-up.