Acunetix vs GitLab comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Invicti Logo
5,195 views|3,878 comparisons
GitLab Logo
4,272 views|3,527 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Acunetix and GitLab 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. GitLab Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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.""Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops.""I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool.""Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well.""There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple.""It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program.""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.""The tool's most valuable feature is performance."

More Acunetix Pros →

"The most valuable features of GitLab are the CI/CD pipeline and code management.""We have seen a couple of merge requests or pull requests raised in GitLab. I see the interface, the way it shows the difference between the two source codes, that it is easy for anyone to do the review and then accept the request; the pull request is the valuable feature.""GitLab's best features are maintenance, branch integration, and development infrastructure.""The most valuable features of GitLab are the review, patch repo, and plans are in YAML.""I like that you can use GitLab as a double-sided solution for both DevOps and version management. It's a good product for working in these two areas, and the user interface makes it easy to understand.""The solution makes the CI/CD pipelines easy to execute.""We like that we can have an all-encompassing product and don't have to implement different solutions.""The solution has an established roadmap that lays out its plans for upgrades over the next two to three years."

More GitLab Pros →

Cons
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others.""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.""Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents.""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.""There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better.""Currently only supports web scanning.""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 solution's pricing could be better."

More Acunetix Cons →

"The price of GitLab could improve, it is high.""GitLab could improve by having more plugins and better user-friendliness.""The initial setup was quite challenging because it takes some time to understand how to pull out or push the code.""The user interface could be more user-friendly. We do most of our operations through the website interface but it could be better.""GitLab can improve by integrating with more tools, such as servers with Docker.""It's more related to the supporting layer of features, such as issue management and issue tracking. We tend to always use, for example, Jira next to it. That doesn't mean that GitLab should build something similar to Jira because that will always have its place, but they could grow a bit in those kinds of supporting features. I see some, for example, covering ITSM on a DevOps team level, and that's one of the things that I and my current client would find really helpful. It's understandably not going to be their main focus and their core, and whenever you are with a company that needs a bit more advanced features on that specific topic, you're probably still going to integrate with another tool like Jira Service Management, for example. However, some basic features on things like that could be really helpful.""The integration could be slightly better.""Based on what I know so far, its integration with Kubernetes is not so good. We have to develop many things to make it work. We have to acquire third-party components to work with Kubernetes."

More GitLab Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."
  • "Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
  • "The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."
  • "All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
  • "The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
  • "I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
  • "The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
  • "When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."
  • More Acunetix Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "I think that we pay approximately $100 USD per month."
  • "The price is okay."
  • "It seems reasonable. Our IT team manages the licenses."
  • "Its price is fine. It is on the cheaper side and not expensive. You have to pay additionally for GitLab CI/CD minutes. Initially, we used the free version. When we ran out of GitLab minutes, we migrated to the paid version."
  • "It is very expensive. We can't bear it now, and we have to find another solution. We have a yearly subscription in which we can increase the number of licenses, but we have to pay at the end of the year."
  • "I don't mind the price because I use the free version."
  • "We are using its free version, and we are evaluating its Premium version. Its Ultimate version is very expensive."
  • "The price of GitLab could be better, it is expensive."
  • More GitLab Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the… more »
    Top Answer:There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others.
    Top Answer:The solution makes the CI/CD pipelines easy to execute.
    Top Answer:The tool should include a feature that helps to edit the code directly.
    Ranking
    Views
    5,195
    Comparisons
    3,878
    Reviews
    7
    Average Words per Review
    317
    Rating
    8.6
    Views
    4,272
    Comparisons
    3,527
    Reviews
    48
    Average Words per Review
    401
    Rating
    8.6
    Comparisons
    Microsoft Azure DevOps logo
    Compared 47% of the time.
    Bamboo logo
    Compared 6% of the time.
    AWS CodePipeline logo
    Compared 5% of the time.
    SonarQube logo
    Compared 4% of the time.
    Tekton logo
    Compared 4% of the time.
    Also Known As
    AcuSensor
    Fuzzit
    Learn More
    Overview

    Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

    GitLab is a complete DevOps platform that enables teams to collaborate and deliver software faster. 

    It provides a single application for the entire DevOps lifecycle, from planning and development to testing, deployment, and monitoring. 

    With GitLab, teams can streamline their workflows, automate processes, and improve productivity.

    Sample Customers
    Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
    1. NASA  2. IBM  3. Sony  4. Alibaba  5. CERN  6. Siemens  7. Volkswagen  8. ING  9. Ticketmaster  10. SpaceX  11. Adobe  12. Intuit  13. Autodesk  14. Rakuten  15. Unity Technologies  16. Pandora  17. Electronic Arts  18. Nordstrom  19. Verizon  20. Comcast  21. Philips  22. Deutsche Telekom  23. Orange  24. Fujitsu  25. Ericsson  26. Nokia  27. General Electric  28. Cisco  29. Accenture  30. Deloitte  31. PwC  32. KPMG
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm31%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Insurance Company6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Government9%
    Comms Service Provider8%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Retailer10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization25%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business38%
    Midsize Enterprise19%
    Large Enterprise42%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise18%
    Large Enterprise59%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business44%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise47%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise34%
    Large Enterprise52%
    Buyer's Guide
    Acunetix vs. GitLab
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. GitLab and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Acunetix is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 68 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while GitLab is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify WebInspect and HCL AppScan, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube and Tekton. See our Acunetix vs. GitLab report.

    See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors, and best DevSecOps 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.