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."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 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's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"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 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."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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 pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
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.