We performed a comparison between Acunetix and NowSecure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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."
"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 usability and overall scan results are good."
"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."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to download an application without actually putting in the APK. It gives us an option to put the APK in if we want to but we can download it from the App Store and Play Store."
"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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"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."
"In this solution, there are two kinds of testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. There needs some improvement in testing with dynamic analysis because I have found it is not accurate"
Earn 20 points
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while NowSecure is ranked 33rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Acunetix is rated 7.6, while NowSecure is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NowSecure writes "Scalable and reliable, but dynamic analysis needs improvement". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas NowSecure is most compared with Veracode, Data Theorem API Secure , Checkmarx One and GitLab.
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.
