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."The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"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."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"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."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"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."
"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."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"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."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
Acunetix is ranked 15th 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 8.0. 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, Fortify WebInspect and HCL AppScan, 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 Application Security Testing (AST) 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.