We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Checkmarx One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"It has all the features we need."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"Meta data is always needed."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Checkmarx One is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Rapid7 Metasploit, whereas Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and GitHub. See our Acunetix vs. Checkmarx One report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors, and best Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
