Most Helpful Review
Enables us to automatically submit each new build for scanning and get results directly into our JIRA
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner vs. PortSwigger Burp and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.
I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.
The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.
We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle.
One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.
It has an easy-to-use interface.
Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools.
It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities.
The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution.
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.
Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick.
We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why.
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 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.
BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding.
The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately.
The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues.
Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it.
Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them.
This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps.
This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives.
"The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved."
One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications.
Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.
I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.
Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.
We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.
Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives.
The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report.
It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors.
The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative.
The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution.
The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired.
I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory.
The scanner and crawler need to be improved.
There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual.
The Initial setup is a bit complex.
Pricing and Cost Advice
They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.
They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works.
Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.
No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.
It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool.
I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms.
Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good.
I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others.
The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000.
All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio.
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.
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.
There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable.
The yearly cost is about $300.
Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition.
Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year.
The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees.
This is a value for money product.
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 74% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Also Known As
Veracode is an application security company that offers an automated cloud-based service for securing web, mobile and third-party enterprise applications. Veracode provides multiple security analysis technologies on a single platform, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, mobile application behavioral analysis and software composition analysis.
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.
Burp Suite is an integrated platform for performing security testing of web applications. Its various tools work seamlessly together to support the entire testing process, from initial mapping and analysis of an application's attack surface, through to finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities.
Learn More About Veracode
Stay Up-To-Date on Application Security
Learn more about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner
Learn more about PortSwigger Burp
|State of Missouri, Rekner||Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand||Maven Security Consulting, OWASP Italy, Penetration Testing Firm|
Financial Services Firm33%
Software R&D Company38%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm8%
No Data Available
Software R&D Company32%
Comms Service Provider11%
No Data Available