Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Invicti Logo
5,655 views|4,244 comparisons
91% willing to recommend
NowSecure Logo
554 views|343 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Acunetix and NowSecure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).
To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: June 2024).
772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
SivaPrakash
AnirudhNair
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The usability and overall scan results are good.""We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections.""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.""I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool.""It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program.""It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have.""Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."

More Acunetix Pros →

"The most valuable feature is the ability to download an application without actually putting in the APK. It gives us an option to put the APK in if we want to but we can download it from the App Store and Play Store."

More NowSecure Pros →

Cons
"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.""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.""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 pricing is a bit on the higher side.""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.""When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic.""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."

More Acunetix Cons →

"In this solution, there are two kinds of testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. There needs some improvement in testing with dynamic analysis because I have found it is not accurate"

More NowSecure Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."
  • "Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
  • "The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."
  • "All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
  • "The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
  • "I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
  • "The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
  • "When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."
  • More Acunetix Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others.
    Top Answer:We use the product for dynamic analysis. It also helps us to scan web applications.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    Views
    5,655
    Comparisons
    4,244
    Reviews
    6
    Average Words per Review
    291
    Rating
    8.5
    Views
    554
    Comparisons
    343
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    AcuSensor
    Learn More
    NowSecure
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

    NowSecure experts have conducted advanced pen testing for some of the world's most demanding organizations - including banks, insurance companies, government agencies, healthcare organizations, retail conglomerates, high-tech businesses, and more. Mobile apps are prone to sensitive data leakages and attacks, yet a manual test for just one app can take several weeks. To enable faster, more frequent testing, we built a test engine that successfully automates repeatable and time-consuming mobile appsec testing, remediation and reporting tasks. The result - the foundation of the NowSecure platform, which significantly reduces testing time and costs without compromising full depth of security coverage.

    Sample Customers
    Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
    Vaporstream, FIS, MEA Financial, Silent Circle, Capital One, Citi, EY, EMC, Emerson, Kaiser Permanente, The Home Depot, Humana, Shell, Kellogg's, TD Bank, VMware
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm31%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Media Company6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Government9%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Hospitality Company8%
    Healthcare Company8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business41%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise41%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise59%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise66%
    Buyer's Guide
    Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
    June 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: June 2024.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while NowSecure is ranked 33rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Acunetix is rated 7.6, while NowSecure is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NowSecure writes "Scalable and reliable, but dynamic analysis needs improvement". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas NowSecure is most compared with Veracode, GitLab, Data Theorem API Secure and Checkmarx One.

    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.