We performed a comparison between Acunetix and SonarQube 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."The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"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."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"We advise all of our developers to have this solution in place."
"There are many options and examples available in the tool that help us fix the issues it shows us."
"The depth features I have found most valuable. You receive a quick comprehensive comparison overview regarding the current release and the last release and what type of depths dependency or duplication should be used. This is going to help you to make a more readable code and have more flexibility for the engineers to understand how things should work when they do not know."
"It is working fine. It provides a good value for money."
"The most valuable feature of SonarQube I have found to be the configuration that has allowed us to can make adjusts to the demands of the code review. It gives a specified classification regarding the skill, prioritization, and it is easy for me to review and make my code."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"It's enabled us to improve software quality and help us to disseminate best practices."
"The solution offers a very good community edition."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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."
"If you don't have any experience with the configuration or how to configure the files, it can be complicated."
"Lacks sufficient visibility and documentation."
"SonarQube could be improved with more dynamic testing—basically, now, it's a static code analysis scan. For example, when the developer writes the code and does the corresponding unit test, he can cover functional and non-functional. So the SonarQube could be improved by helping to execute unit tests and test dynamically, using various parameters, and to help detect any vulnerabilities. Currently, it'll just give the test case and say whether it passes or fails—it won't give you any other input or dynamic testing. They could use artificial intelligence to build a feature that would help developers identify and fix issues in the early stages, which would help us deliver the product and reduce costs. Another area with room for improvement is in regard to automating things, since the process currently needs to be done manually."
"The solution could improve the management reports by making them easier to understand for the technical team that needs to review them."
"We had some issues where the Quality Gate check sometimes gets stuck and it is unclear."
"It would be better if SonarQube provided a good UI for external configuration."
"SonarQube could be improved by implementing inter-procedural code analysis capabilities, allowing for a more comprehensive detection of defects and vulnerabilities across the entire codebase."
"This is a well-rounded solution, however, some features could be made available on the free version. The price of the solution could be reduced."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Tenable Nessus, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security. See our Acunetix vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
