We performed a comparison between Rapid7 Metasploit 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, Acunetix comes out ahead of Rapid7 Metasploit. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that Rapid7 Metasploit requires technical understanding for deployment and the free version lacks technical support.
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The most valuable feature for us is the support for testing Linux-based web server components."
"The tool's most useful feature for penetration testing is its automation capabilities. With the professional edition, you can upload the results from Nessus in the Rapid7 Metasploit solution portal."
"All of the features are great."
"It's not possible to do penetration testing without being very proficient in Metasploit."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scripts, the modules, and the tools that the Rapid7 Metasploit framework has."
"The greatest advantage of Rapid7 Metasploit is that it is the only system that can directly exploit vulnerabilities on the Metasploit platform."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The option to generate phishing emails has proven to be very valuable in understanding the behavior of users."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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 solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"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."
"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."
"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."
"There are numerous outdated exploits in their database that should be updated."
"It is necessary to add some training materials and a tutorial for beginners."
"I would like to see more capabilities, more functions, and more features. More types of attack vectors."
"The open-source version has reporting limitations. You need to develop these capabilities yourself. Built-in reporting is an excellent feature for penetration testing, but it isn't a must-have. The solution could also cover more vulnerabilities. Metasploit has around 10,000 exploits in its library, but more is always better."
"Advanced Infrastructure should be implemented in the next release for better orchestration."
"Metasploit cannot be installed on a machine with an antivirus."
"The initial setup was a bit "tweaky" for the open-source version."
"The solution should improve the responsiveness of its live technical support."
Acunetix is ranked 15th in Vulnerability Management with 26 reviews while Rapid7 Metasploit is ranked 12th in Vulnerability Management with 18 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 Metasploit 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 Rapid7 Metasploit writes "Helps find vulnerabilities in a system to determine whether the system needs to be upgraded". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Rapid7 AppSpider, whereas Rapid7 Metasploit is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Pentera, Rapid7 InsightVM, Nucleus and Qualys VMDR. See our Acunetix vs. Rapid7 Metasploit report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all Vulnerability Management 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.
