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)."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 most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"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."
"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."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"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."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while Synopsys API Security Testing is ranked 29th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Synopsys API Security Testing is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys API Security Testing writes "Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Synopsys API Security Testing is most compared with Seeker, Fortify WebInspect and OWASP Zap.
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.
