We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Fortify Software Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"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."
"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."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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 is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
More Fortify Software Security Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while Fortify Software Security Center is ranked 27th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 3 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Fortify Software Security Center is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Software Security Center writes "A fair-priced solution that helps with application security testing ". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Fortify Software Security Center is most compared with Fortify on Demand, Tricentis Tosca, Checkmarx One and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
