We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Spirent CyberFlood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"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."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"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."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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 would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"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."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"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 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."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Spirent CyberFlood is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE. See our Acunetix vs. Spirent CyberFlood report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.