We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Fortify Software Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"The solution is highly stable."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
More Fortify Software Security Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while Fortify Software Security Center is ranked 27th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 3 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Fortify Software Security Center is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Software Security Center writes "A fair-priced solution that helps with application security testing ". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Fortify Software Security Center is most compared with Fortify on Demand, Tricentis Tosca, Checkmarx One and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.