Acunetix vs Synopsys API Security Testing comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.3, while Black Duck is ranked #36. Invicti holds a 3.3% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 31 Acunetix reviews

4,427 Views
3,570 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Synopsys API Security Testing

Read 1 Synopsys API Security Testing review

228 Views
177 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Synopsys API Security Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Synopsys API Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 838,713 peers since 2012

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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

13th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (22nd), DevSecOps (6th)

Synopsys API Security Testing

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

36th

Average Rating

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, 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 Synopsys API Security Testing is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

AnubhavGoswami

Compliance Manager at Compunnel

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…

Read full review

UmarQureshi

Security Lead at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support

We are using Synopsys API Security Testing for scanning APIs for risks and vulnerabilities and to understand our posture before deployment within our business The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares. I have been…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."

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

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."

"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."

"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."

"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."

"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."

"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."

More Acunetix pros

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

Cons

"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."

"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."

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

"There is room for improvement in the pricing."

"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."

"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."

More Acunetix cons

"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

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

"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."

"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."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"The solution is expensive."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

22%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Insurance Company

10%

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.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

I use Acunetix for penetration testing purposes. This is the primary use case.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 16% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 12% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 10% of the time

Tenable.io Web Application Scanning vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

Seeker vs Synopsys API Security Testing

Compared 40% of the time

Invicti vs Synopsys API Security Testing

Compared 35% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Synopsys API Security Testing

Compared 26% of the time

More Synopsys API Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

February 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2025

Download Synopsys API Security Testing product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

No data available

Overview

Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

Invicti

AppSec testing optimized for the needs of API developers
APIs provide open, flexible interfaces that enable applications and services to talk to each other. But these characteristics can also make it difficult to build secure software—and even more difficult for traditional AppSec tools to test it.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.