We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Spirent CyberFlood 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."The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"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."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The solution is highly stable."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"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."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Spirent CyberFlood is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE. See our Acunetix vs. Spirent CyberFlood 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.