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 7.9, while OWASP is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.2. Invicti holds a 2.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.4% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 36 Acunetix reviews

6,676 Views
4,072 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,440 Views
6,845 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: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,933 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

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Vulnerability Management (28th), DevSecOps (6th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

9th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.6%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.4%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OWASP Zap	3.4%
Acunetix	2.6%
Other	94.0%

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

Nithin-K

Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features

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 Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking.

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 haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."

"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."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."

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

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

More Acunetix pros

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

"OWASP Zap is a good tool, one of my favorites for a long time, and I would recommend it."

"Technical support is excellent."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."

"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."

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

"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."

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

"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."

"Acunetix should improve by further reducing false positives and providing more customized reports, plus better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps."

"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."

More Acunetix cons

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

"We have had stability issues a few times."

"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."

"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."

"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."

"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"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 price is exceptionally high."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

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

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"The tool is open source."

"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."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"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 free to use."

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

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

884,933 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

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing 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	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

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

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 do you like most about OWASP Zap?

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, i...

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

Comparisons

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

SonarQube vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

March 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download OWASP Zap 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

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

March 2026

Free Report: Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,933 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.