Acunetix vs Synopsys API Security Testing [EOL] comparison

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

"The scalability is more than good; it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have, and this solution is simple enough, especially with the cloud."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

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

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

"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."

"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."

"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."

"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."

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."

"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 solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

"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."

"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."

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

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

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

"The price is exceptionally high."

"The solution is expensive."

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