Acunetix vs GitHub Code Scanning comparison

Invicti and GitHub are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.3, while GitHub is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.5. Invicti holds a 3.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to GitHub’s 1.3% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of GitHub users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

6,151 Views
3,998 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

GitHub Code Scanning

Read 6 GitHub Code Scanning reviews

1,016 Views
965 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Acunetix

GitHub Code Scanning

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Acunetix and GitHub Code Scanning are key players in security and code testing. GitHub Code Scanning generally holds an advantage for its ease of use and seamless integration into development workflows.

Features: Acunetix provides comprehensive vulnerability detection, robust scanning, and extensive reporting for deep security analysis. GitHub Code Scanning offers seamless integration with CI/CD pipelines, a streamlined interface, and effective collaboration tools within the GitHub ecosystem.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could benefit from enhanced integration, improved performance speed, and simplified user navigation. GitHub Code Scanning needs more comprehensive vulnerability detection, expanded language support, and enhanced reporting capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix requires a complex setup but has satisfactory customer service. GitHub Code Scanning offers simple deployment with integrated support from the GitHub ecosystem, leading to higher user satisfaction.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix comes with a higher upfront cost but offers significant long-term value through its exhaustive security features. GitHub Code Scanning provides cost-effective solutions via GitHub plans, achieving ROI through efficient workflow integration.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. GitHub Code Scanning Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. GitHub Code Scanning

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,295 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)

GitHub Code Scanning

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

17th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.5%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitHub Code Scanning is 1.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

VishalSingh

Consulting & Solutions, BA/BD in Enterprise IT on Open Source, Red Hat & EDB at KEEN AND ABLE COMPUTERS PVT LTD

Traverses the entire network, scanning every system to determine which ports are open

You can use the tool locally on your system or in the cloud. I rate it a nine out of ten. It's a very good tool for people who want to start using GitHubCode Scanning, especially for software development or team collaboration. GitHubCode Scanning allows teams to collaborate by uploading files to repositories. For example, if someone is developing an application, they can host the code on GitHub Code Scanning. Other developers can then download the code for testing purposes. If bugs are found, fixes can be applied using the GitHub Code Scanningrepository, and everyone on the team can see the changes. Software developers often use GitHub Code Scanning for version control, and it's essential for CI/CD pipelines to work.

Read full 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 performance."

"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."

"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."

"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."

More Acunetix pros

"The static code analysis capability in GitHub Code Scanning is a very powerful feature, providing the ability to identify vulnerabilities and ensure code quality."

"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."

"It's very scalable, very easy to handle, and very intuitive."

"GitHub Code Spaces brings significant value with its simplicity and ease of use."

"GitHub Code Scanning has positively impacted my organization as it helps us recognize errors and avoid many later issues which may arise."

"The solution helps identify vulnerabilities by understanding how ports communicate with applications running on a system. Ports are like house numbers; to visit someone's house, you must know their number. Similarly, ports are used to communicate with applications. For example, if you want to use an HTTP web server, you must use port 80. It is the port on which the web application or your server listens for incoming requests."

Cons

"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."

"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."

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"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."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."

"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."

"I rate its stability six out of ten."

More Acunetix cons

"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."

"At times it becomes very annoying as it highlights certain things which are intuitive. They require code coverage for those aspects as an extra overhead."

"When running code scans, GitHub Code Scanning provides recommendations for probable fixes. However, integrating a feature where developers receive real-time highlights of vulnerabilities when checking in or merging a PR would be beneficial."

"One area for improvement could be the ability to have an AI system digest the reports generated from code scanning and provide a summary. Currently, the reports can be extensive, and users may overlook details, such as outdated libraries, which could be highlighted for attention."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

"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."

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"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."

"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The minimum pricing for the tool is five dollars a month."

"GitHub Code Scanning is a moderately priced solution."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

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.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

See all answers

What do you like most about GitHub Code Scanning?

We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub Code Scanning?

The organization pays for the license of GitHub Code Scanning, but specific price details are unknown.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GitHub Code Scanning?

In my opinion, areas of GitHub Code Scanning that could be improved include that a few things are not visible to us, such as where it stores data and which path. There is a separate team for that w...

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 17% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 32% of the time

Coverity vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 24% of the time

SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 11% of the time

Aikido Security vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 7% of the time

More GitHub Code Scanning Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

August 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

GitHub Code Scanning

August 2025

Download GitHub Code Scanning product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

No data available

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.

Invicti

Code scanning is a feature that you use to analyze the code in a GitHub repository to find security vulnerabilities and coding errors. Any problems identified by the analysis are shown in GitHub.

GitHub

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. GitHub Code Scanning

July 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. GitHub Code Scanning

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. GitHub Code Scanning and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. GitHub Code Scanning report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.