We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Qualys Web Application Scanning 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."We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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."
"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."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"You can integrate your Burp Suite results and create an integrated report. Also, the way it shows the results - threats and exploit details - makes remediation very easy."
"The simplicity of exporting reports and the simplicity and clarity of the reports included with the product are good."
"It is a good product for website penetration testing to detect vulnerabilities."
"With our vulnerabilities under control, it's putting our services in compliance and minimizing our risk for exposure."
"Qualys Web Application Scanning has multiple features like threat protection and container security scanning in one box."
"The interface is user-friendly and easy to understand."
"This product is designed for easy scalability and can easily scale up without major challenges."
"It is easy to use."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"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."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"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 be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"The support could be faster."
"We procured around 110 licenses for Web Application Scanning, but we have issues running concurrent scans. I don't currently have the option to trigger scans for all 100-plus websites. The default limit is around 10 conference scans. It's not very scalable, to be honest, because of the limitation that they put on concurrent scans."
"The area of false positives could be improved. There are quite a number of false positives as compared to other solutions. They could probably fine tune the algorithm to be able to reduce the number of false positives being detected."
"There's a distinction between internal and external scanning processes that could be streamlined. Currently, for internal scanning, specific configurations and scanner appliances need to be deployed within the network, which differs from the simpler setup for external scans. This dual process complicates the setup for comprehensive scanning coverage."
"Sometimes the response time is low because the handshake fails, and then you have to re-login and start again."
"There could be better management and faster scanning."
"The solution needs to adjust its pricing. They should make it more affordable."
"In terms of the Policy Compliance model which they currently have, not all the platforms are being covered. If they could improve on the Policy Compliance model, since there are policies which are benchmarked against it, this will be helpful for us."
More Qualys Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Qualys Web Application Scanning is ranked 18th in Application Security Tools with 31 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Qualys Web Application Scanning is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Qualys Web Application Scanning writes "A stable solution that can be used for infrastructure vulnerability scanning and web application scanning". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Checkmarx One, whereas Qualys Web Application Scanning is most compared with OWASP Zap, Veracode, SonarQube, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and HCL AppScan. See our Acunetix vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning 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.