Acunetix vs ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity Platform comparison

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."

"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."

"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."

"The usability and overall scan results are good."

"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."

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"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 core scanning, the scanning process, has got a very nice pass management module. It's fantastic."

"There is room for improvement in the pricing."

"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"The cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."

"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."

"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."

"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."

"The anomaly detection could be improved."

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"The solution is expensive."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."

"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."

"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."