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

Acunetix vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Application Security Tools
16th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)
Spirent CyberFlood
Ranking in Application Security Tools
35th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
32nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.6%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent CyberFlood is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

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…
Jos Badimo - PeerSpot reviewer
Test assurance improves compliance and products with good performance
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one screen most of the time. Even if the system navigates me to another screen, it should effectively return me to the main screen.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."
"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The solution is highly stable."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
 

Cons

"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."
"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"The price is exceptionally high."
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is expensive."
"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 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
23%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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.
What needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one...
What is your primary use case for Spirent CyberFlood?
I have been using the solution for a year now. The customers I work with are focused on both custom test assurance and test automation. The solution is utilized in the financial services sector and...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Digicel
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Spirent CyberFlood and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.