Acunetix vs ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity Platform comparison

"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."

"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."

"The product is really easy to use."

"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."

"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."

"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."

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

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

"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."

"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"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."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."

"The anomaly detection could be improved."

"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."

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

"The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."

"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."

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

"The price is exceptionally high."

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"The solution is expensive."