Side by side
Csmith vs Wfuzz
Both stand on fuzz testing software. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan LinuxWindows
Choose Csmith when you need locally generated C programs for compiler comparisons or test-suite creation. Timely maintainer responses are not assured.
Visit Csmith Free plan LinuxMacSelf-hosted+1
Choose Wfuzz if you need a free, locally run framework for generating inputs across HTTP requests and assessing web applications. Its broad request coverage, scanner plugins, and payload tools are useful reasons to consider it. Look elsewhere if you need a service that does not run locally or a license other than GPL-2.0.
Visit WfuzzThe facts
| Csmith | Wfuzz | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Linux, Windows | Linux, Mac, Self-hosted, Windows |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Free or on request |
| Plans published | 1 | 1 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | github.com | github.com |
| On fuzz testing software | #9 of 26 | #13 of 26 |
Csmith: what it does well
- Generates C programs without undefined behavior.
- Includes statistics with each generated program.
- Supports comparing GCC and Clang output.
- Command-line options customize program generation.
- Runs locally on Linux and Windows.
What to know first
- Generated programs may contain infinite loops and need timeouts.
- Building from source on Ubuntu requires g++, CMake, and m4.
- Maintainer responses may be delayed.
Wfuzz: what it does well
- FUZZ markers can supply payload values across many HTTP request components.
- Payloads can be combined, encoded, and filtered against responses.
- A plugin-supported vulnerability scanner is included.
- The modular framework allows users to build plugins.
- Installation options include pip and a Docker image.
What to know first
- Wfuzz executes locally.
- The project is licensed under GPL-2.0.