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)."The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"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."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."
"The solution is highly stable."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"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.
