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."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."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"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 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."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"I find the attack model quite amazing, where I can write my scripts and load my scripts as well, which helps quite a bit. All the active scanning that it can do is also quite a lot helpful. It speeds up our vulnerability assessment and penetration testing. Right now, I am enjoying its in-browser, which also helps quite a bit. I'm always confused about setting up some proxy, but it really is the big solution we all want."
"With the Extender Tab, if you know how to code then you can create a plugin and add it to Burp."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional has an intercept tab that helps us to scan our APIs, set the response, and request errors."
"The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."
"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."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"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 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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"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 is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional could improve the static code review."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"There is not much automation in the tool."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
"Mitigating the issues and low confluence issues needs some improvement. Implementing demand with the ChatGPT under the web solution is an additional feature I would like to see in the next release."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Acunetix is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 12th in Application Security Tools with 54 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, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan 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.