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
38
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th), Vulnerability Management (19th), 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 Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"It generates automated reports."
"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."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
 

Cons

"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"I think Acunetix needs improvement since it is now working with Invicti, so the price list will need to be reconsidered."
"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."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"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

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."
"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."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"The solution is expensive."
"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 costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"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.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
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 Enterprise17
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.
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.
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: January 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.