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."For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"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."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"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."
"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."
"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"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."
"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."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"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."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"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."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
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.
