Acunetix vs OWASP Zap comparison

Invicti and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.2, while OWASP is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 2.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 2.7% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 36 Acunetix reviews

11,357 Views
6,133 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

9,445 Views
8,784 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

Acunetix and OWASP Zap are contenders in web application security testing. Acunetix generally leads due to its extensive feature set, though OWASP Zap’s cost-effectiveness as a free tool makes it more accessible for smaller organizations.

Features: Acunetix offers scheduling of tests, an Interactive Application Security Testing module, and comprehensive reporting. It also integrates with other applications, providing flexibility and scalability. OWASP Zap provides automated scanning, API support, and a user-friendly interface beneficial for beginners and supports various platforms like Mac, Linux, and Windows.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix users mention the need for better report customization and have noted issues with false positives. More integration capabilities with newer tools like GitHub and flexible licensing options are also desired. For OWASP Zap, improvements in reporting with more graphical illustrations, enhanced tackling of false positives, and advanced features for mobile app testing are suggested. Users also seek more frequent updates and increased coverage complexity.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix supports versatile deployment options, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, and offers satisfactory technical support, although improvement in response times is noted. OWASP Zap, primarily deployed on-premises, benefits from community-driven support, providing timely assistance despite the lack of traditional 24-hour customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix is perceived as expensive, with rising costs impacting its value compared to alternatives but offers a return on investment through enhanced security. Conversely, OWASP Zap, being free and open-source, eliminates licensing costs, significantly boosting ROI, particularly for organizations with limited budgets.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 908,834 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)

10th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Vulnerability Management (30th), DevSecOps (6th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

16th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.6%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Acunetix	2.6%
OWASP Zap	2.7%
Other	94.7%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

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

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

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

"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."

"It's a very easy deployment and easy application."

"Acunetix is the best service in the world."

"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."

"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."

"Segregation of reports is really, really good with Acunetix; it provides us with a lot of in-depth details."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"If an organization has 100 plus applications and wants to use an automated scanner, they should definitely go ahead with Acunetix because it is very cost-effective and will save time compared to focusing on other solutions and performing manual security assessments."

More Acunetix pros

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."

"Zap is an open-source and sophisticated product that not only saves us money but also provides us with a good amount of information."

"The HUD, Heads Up Display, is a good feature; it provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"We use the solution for security testing."

"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."

"Tool is quite expensive though compared to other tools."

"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."

"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."

"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."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"One of the biggest problems I've had with Acunetix is that it's hard to replicate things manually because you don't get the raw packet."

"However, it doesn't seem very helpful or useful for scanning web services, and that has what I feel that the organization could work better on that."

More Acunetix cons

"Right now, I can't give it off to a team and expect them to give me a report that I'm happy with."

"There are too many false positives."

"It needs more robust reporting tools that can be in an editable form."

"I would recommend this product to people although I think it is very difficult to deploy and we also have issues with maintenance."

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."

"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."

"The product reporting could be improved."

"I'd also like to see an improvement in test reports because we get too many false positives."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

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

"The solution is expensive."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"This solution is open source and free."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

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

908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	19

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	22

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

In a typical enterprise environment, Acunetix is mainly used for visibility, detection, and investigation across network traffic. The main use cases usually fall into a few core areas, with primary...

See all answers

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

I advise that Acunetix is the best option. Invest time in proper initial configuration and scope definitions. The tool is powerful, but its effectiveness depends heavily on how the authenticated ar...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?

Everything is perfect and good, including the pricing and all related aspects.

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

What needs improvement with OWASP Zap?

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postm...

See all answers

Comparisons

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 5% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

August 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

July 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

No data available

Overview

Acunetix is a dynamic application security tool used globally for web application vulnerability scanning, focusing on SQL injection and cross-site scripting.

Acunetix provides a comprehensive web vulnerability assessment platform designed for identifying and remediating security threats. Users benefit from its ability to schedule scans, boasting a fast detection rate for common vulnerabilities. The tool's centralized dashboard helps organizations with compliance monitoring and features such as crawling and login sequence enhancements, contributing depth to its security assessments. Despite high praise for its integration capabilities and automated scanning that saves time, pricing and false positives present challenges. Organizations often use Acunetix to maintain internal security and evaluate pre-release environments.

What are Acunetix's main features?

Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed reports assist in security analysis and compliance audits.
User-Friendly Interface: Simple navigation enhances user experience.
Scheduled Scans: Automation of scans allows for continuous monitoring.
Fast Detection: Quickly identifies vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting.
Integration Capabilities: Scalable solutions with compatibility across applications.
Crawling & Login Sequence: Improves depth in security analysis.

What benefits should businesses look for in reviews?

Low False Positive Rate: Accurate vulnerability detection saves time in analysis.
Time Efficiency: Automated scans reduce manual workload, improving team productivity.
Scalability: Integration features help accommodate growth and complexity.
Compliance Support: Centralized dashboard supports regulatory compliance checks.

In industries like finance, healthcare, and technology, Acunetix assists in protecting sensitive data through robust scanning and reporting capabilities. Its ability to perform dynamic assessments makes it a chosen tool in regulatory environments and development settings, offering both internal security inspections and pre-release evaluations.

Invicti

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

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

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

August 2026

Free Report: Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap 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.