Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th), Vulnerability Management (17th), DevSecOps (5th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.3%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 5.2%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

AnubhavGoswami - PeerSpot reviewer
Attractive automated reports with boost user productivity and an easy setup
The primary use is mainly related to vulnerability assessment, including both public and internal IP addresses By using this tool, we have reduced the workload and increased the productivity of users. It generates automated reports. This feature is beneficial when sharing reports with clients as…
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support
There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"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."
"It generates automated reports."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"The interface is easy to use."
 

Cons

"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."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."
"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."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."
"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."
"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"There are too many false positives."
"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"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."
"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."
"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"The solution is expensive."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"The tool is open-source."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
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.
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I use Acunetix for penetration testing purposes. This is the primary use case.
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I rate the overall solution nine out of ten. I prefer Acunetix for its more precise and accurate results.
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about OWASP Zap?
The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.