We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Synopsys Code Dx 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)."The usability and overall scan results are good."
"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 solution is highly stable."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"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."
"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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The customers were looking for something around static security and dynamic security, and in all those areas, they were looking for an industry leader with a proven solution. Synopsys is a Gartner leader, so I position this particular technology for the technical pre-sales part of it."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"The initial setup is a bit challenging because things are not easy. It needs a lot of technology adaptability plus the customer's environment-specific use cases."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while Synopsys Code Dx is ranked 32nd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Synopsys Code Dx is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys Code Dx writes "Facilitates continuous assessment of applications, covering both static and dynamic security aspects". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Synopsys Code Dx is most compared with Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and SonarQube.
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.
