Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Acunetix vs Synopsys API Security Testing [EOL] comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (10th), Vulnerability Management (28th), DevSecOps (6th)
Synopsys API Security Testi...
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
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 Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and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.
UmarQureshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Lead at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support
We are using Synopsys API Security Testing for scanning APIs for risks and vulnerabilities and to understand our posture before deployment within our business The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares. I have been…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"I appreciate the features that Acunetix has for the speed and the fact that it is in the cloud, which does not put any resources in my network, so I can set up a scan, go to bed, come back, and see the reports in my email."
"The product is really easy to use."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The solution is comprehensive and easy to use."
"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
 

Cons

"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."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"The time to fix issues is not too quick, so in the case of time-restricted projects for some customers, this might become a problem."
"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."
"I rate its stability six out of ten."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"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."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"The price is exceptionally high."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
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
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise18
No data available
 

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...
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.
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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.