We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Acunetix based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, OWASP Zap comes out ahead of Acunetix. Although both products have valuable features and have straightforward deployments, our reviewers found that Acunetix has high pricing, which is considered expensive by some users, especially for small organizations.
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"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."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The API is exceptional."
"The solution is scalable."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"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."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"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."
"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."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Acunetix is most compared with Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan, Fortify WebInspect and Veracode, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Veracode and Checkmarx One. See our Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap report.
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.
