We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Spirent CyberFlood 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."Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"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 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 most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"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."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"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."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Spirent CyberFlood is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE. See our Acunetix vs. Spirent CyberFlood report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.