We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Vulnerability Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"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."
"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."
"Tenable SC is good for reporting and alerting. The filtering feature is also very valuable. Its integration with multiple vendors is quite good. It can be integrated with SIEM solutions and PAM solutions such as Thycotic, which is very helpful."
"Has a great advanced scanning feature."
"It is a very good and user-friendly product."
"Support is knowledgeable."
"Initial setup was pretty straightforward."
"What is useful to me is being able to fulfill very customized scanning policies. In the clinical environment, because of vendor control, we can't perform credential-vulnerability scanning. And network scans, which I've done before, can cause a lot of impact. Being able to create very customized policies to be able to routinely scan and audit our clinical networks, while simultaneously not causing impact, is important to us."
"The solution is completely stable and operation is user-friendly."
"Tenable is the leading product for vulnerability scanning."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"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."
"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."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"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."
"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."
"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"There is not much room for improvement. However, there should be a guide that describes the step-by-step procedures for doing tasks. Otherwise, training is required from a senior guy to a junior guy."
"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."
"We would like to see the inclusion of external IPs and simplified reporting that's easier to deal with"
"The reporting side can be improved. The dashboards are nice, but exporting things out for reports for management was a little tough."
"Tenable has some problems with agents going offline during scanning and lag between agents and the security center."
"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."
"It's good at creating information, it's good creating dashboards, it's good at creating reports, but if you want to take that reporting metadata and put it into another tool, that is a little bit lacking."
Acunetix is ranked 14th in Vulnerability Management with 26 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Horizon3.ai. See our Acunetix vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all Vulnerability Management 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.