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.
"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."
"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."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The solution is highly stable."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"The greatest advantage of Rapid7 Metasploit is that it is the only system that can directly exploit vulnerabilities on the Metasploit platform."
"I use Rapid7 Metasploit for payload generation and Post-Exploitation."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scripts, the modules, and the tools that the Rapid7 Metasploit framework has."
"Rapid7 Metasploit is a useful product."
"It is scalable. It's in line with our needs."
"It's not possible to do penetration testing without being very proficient in Metasploit."
"It allows us to concentrate solely on identified vulnerabilities without the hassle of additional setup."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"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."
"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."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"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."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup was a bit "tweaky" for the open-source version."
"The solution is not very scalable, it does not provide any automation to be able to scale it."
"At the time I was using it, the graphical user interface needed some improvements."
"Advanced Infrastructure should be implemented in the next release for better orchestration."
"The open-source version has reporting limitations. You need to develop these capabilities yourself. Built-in reporting is an excellent feature for penetration testing, but it isn't a must-have. The solution could also cover more vulnerabilities. Metasploit has around 10,000 exploits in its library, but more is always better."
"Metasploit cannot be installed on a machine with an antivirus."
"Better automation capabilities would be an improvement."
"I would like to see more capabilities, more functions, and more features. More types of attack vectors."
Acunetix is ranked 15th in Vulnerability Management with 26 reviews while Rapid7 Metasploit is ranked 13th 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 Wireshark. 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.
