We performed a comparison between Acunetix and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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."For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"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 solution is highly stable."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"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 comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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."
"We use the solution for vulnerability assessment in respect of the application and the sites."
"The reporting part is the most valuable. It also has very good features. We use almost all of the features for different kinds of customers and needs."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"I personally love its capability to automatically and accurately detect vulnerabilities. So, I would say it is the Burp scanner that is THE most powerful, valuable, and an awesome feature."
"It was easy to learn."
"BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding."
"The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"The initial setup is simple."
"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."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"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."
"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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"The tool is very expensive."
"There needs to be better documentation provided. Currently, we need to buy books, or we need to review online some use cases from other professionals who have been using the solution to find out their experience. It is not easy to find out how to properly do a security assessment."
"I would like to see the return of the spider mechanism instead of the crawling feature. Burp Suite's earlier version 1.7 had an excellent spider option, and it would be beneficial if Burp incorporated those features into the current version. The crawling techniques used in the current version are not as efficient as those used in earlier versions."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"There were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Acunetix is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 9th in Application Security Tools with 55 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, HCL AppScan, Fortify WebInspect and Veracode, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan, Qualys Web Application Scanning and SonarQube. See our Acunetix vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.