We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Synopsys API Security Testing 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)."Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"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 tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."
"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."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"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."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while Synopsys API Security Testing is ranked 29th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Synopsys API Security Testing 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 Synopsys API Security Testing writes "Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Synopsys API Security Testing is most compared with Seeker, Fortify WebInspect and OWASP Zap.
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.
