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)."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 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."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"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."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"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 valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"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."
"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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."
Earn 20 points
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.
