We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Fortify WebInspect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two DevSecOps solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"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 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."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"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 most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"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."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"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."
"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 improve its cost."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"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."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"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 needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"The initial setup was complex."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"The scanner could be better."
Acunetix is ranked 5th in DevSecOps with 26 reviews while Fortify WebInspect is ranked 7th in DevSecOps with 17 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Fortify WebInspect 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 Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Veracode, whereas Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, OWASP Zap, HCL AppScan and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Acunetix vs. Fortify WebInspect report.
See our list of best DevSecOps vendors.
We monitor all DevSecOps 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.
