We performed a comparison between Rapid7 Metasploit and Acunetix based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, Acunetix comes out ahead of Rapid7 Metasploit. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that Rapid7 Metasploit requires technical understanding for deployment and the free version lacks technical support.
"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"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 usability and overall scan results are good."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"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 not possible to do penetration testing without being very proficient in Metasploit."
"Rapid7 Metasploit is a useful product."
"The most valuable feature for us is the support for testing Linux-based web server components."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"I use Rapid7 Metasploit for payload generation and Post-Exploitation."
"The solution is open source and has many small targetted penetration tests that have been written by many people that are useful. You can choose different subjects for the test, such as Oracle databases or Apache servers."
"The option to generate phishing emails has proven to be very valuable in understanding the behavior of users."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"Metasploit cannot be installed on a machine with an antivirus."
"At the time I was using it, the graphical user interface needed some improvements."
"I think areas with shortcomings that need improvement are more integration and automation."
"I would like to see more capabilities, more functions, and more features. More types of attack vectors."
"If your company's patch is not up to date, but you have other detection or defense solutions such as endpoint detection and response and antivirus software, the product exploit may not work effectively. This is because its exploit database update process is slow and not real-time. For zero-day vulnerabilities or new security threats, relying on Rapid7 Metasploit alone may not be effective."
"The solution should improve the responsiveness of its live technical support."
"The solution is not user-friendly and has room for improvement."
"Rapid7 Metasploit can add a GUI feature because it is only available online."
Acunetix is ranked 15th in Vulnerability Management with 26 reviews while Rapid7 Metasploit is ranked 12th in Vulnerability Management with 18 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 Metasploit is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 Metasploit writes "Helps find vulnerabilities in a system to determine whether the system needs to be upgraded". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Rapid7 AppSpider, whereas Rapid7 Metasploit is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Pentera, Rapid7 InsightVM, Nucleus and Qualys VMDR. See our Acunetix vs. Rapid7 Metasploit report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all Vulnerability Management 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.