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."It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"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."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"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 automated scan is what I find most useful because a lot of customers will need it. Not every domain will be looking for complete security, they just need a stamp on the security key. For these kinds of customers, the scan works really well."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
"This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps."
"I have found the best features to be the performance and there are a lot of additional plugins available."
"BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"The pricing of the solution is quite high."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"It would be good if the solution could give us more details about what exactly is defective."
"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."
"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."
"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"I am from Brazil. The currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep. It is almost six to one. It would be good if it can be sold in the local currency, and its price is cheaper for us."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
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.