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 valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"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 usability and overall scan results are good."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"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 most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"There is no other tool like it. I like the intuitiveness and the plugins that are available."
"Enables automation of different tasks such as authorization testing."
"With the Extender Tab, if you know how to code then you can create a plugin and add it to Burp."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"For pentesting scenarios, this is the number one tool. It can capture the request, and there are so many functions that are very good for that. For example, a black box satellite host."
"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 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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"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."
"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."
"Scanning needs to be improved in enterprise and professional versions."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
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 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, 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.
