Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the DevSecOps category. Invicti is ranked #6 with an average rating of 7.9, while OpenText is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 6.2% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 6.7% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 36 Acunetix reviews

6,676 Views
668 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,229 Views
678 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Acunetix and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing compete in application security. Acunetix has the edge in terms of pricing and speed, whereas OpenText is favored for robust user authentication features and comprehensive vulnerability detection, despite its higher cost.

Features: Acunetix provides scheduling capabilities, IAST for granular findings, and exceptional reporting flexibility for deployment on-premises or in the cloud. OpenText supports strong authenticated scans, is adept at identifying JavaScript-based vulnerabilities, and offers a reliable structure for comprehensive vulnerability checks.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could improve in handling false positives, broader features such as differential scans, and clearer pricing models. It also needs better integration and advanced authentication capabilities. OpenText needs to enhance its file extension coverage, clarify pricing structures, and streamline its license models for better cost-effectiveness.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix is versatile with multiple deployment modes, including hybrid clouds, but receives mixed reviews on customer service responsiveness. OpenText offers strong deployment flexibility but relies on a ticket-based support system, potentially causing delays, though it maintains a reputation for effective technical support.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix's pricing has risen but remains considered affordable for small to mid-sized businesses, with good ROI. OpenText is viewed as expensive, with some confusion over its pricing; however, users justify the cost with its thorough security capabilities. Both solutions provide significant ROI by enhancing security posture and reducing vulnerabilities, with differing costs and pricing structures.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 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 DevSecOps

6th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (10th), Vulnerability Management (28th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in DevSecOps

8th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 6.2%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.7%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Acunetix	6.2%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	6.7%
Other	87.1%

DevSecOps

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar

Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees

Identifies vulnerabilities across bulk web applications but needs better support and cleaner reports

The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers. The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning. In terms of reporting, Acunetix is excellent because it can generate different types of reports, such as an executive summary report, detailed reports, and developer reports that can be shared directly with developers. Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and OWASP. Acunetix provides a centralized report with compliance-related aspects and a vulnerability timeline, effectively helping reduce vulnerabilities and save time.

Read full review

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

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

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

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

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

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

"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."

"The product is really easy to use."

"Acunetix helps reduce the man-days and effort needed for scanning bulk applications through automated assessments, allowing good dashboard visualization that can be reported easily to management, providing complete visibility on vulnerability metrics."

"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."

More Acunetix pros

"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."

"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

"The solution is easy to use."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"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 cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."

"Acunetix provides the benefit of saving time for an end user. I would not say it saves money because the cost and license of Acunetix is far more than what others offer."

"Improving the handling of false positives would be beneficial because it can be challenging to trust the findings flagged by Acunetix, and those findings must be manually validated."

"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."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"There is room for improvement in the pricing."

"I believe Acunetix can improve customer support, as the dedicated support staff are often unfamiliar with problems and troubleshooting, leading to communication gaps that delay issue resolution."

More Acunetix cons

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"The initial setup was complex."

"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."

"The scanner could be better."

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."

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

"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."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

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

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The price is okay."

"This solution is very expensive."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

14%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	18

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

I'm using Acunetix to automate security checks. Acunetix helped me catch common vulnerability issues early and improved the overall security posture of the application before development, specifica...

See all answers

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

I would advise anyone or any startup looking to engage in the security part to directly use Acunetix, as this will help in most aspects. I would rate this product a nine out of ten.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been that the setup cost and pricing need to be reconsidered.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 11% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

Coverity Static vs Acunetix

Compared 2% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 24% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Check Point CloudGuard Code Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

March 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

March 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

February 2026

Free Report: Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing 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.