Team Lead, Application Security at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Mar 11, 2026
Every product needs to do continuous improvements. For now, if Acunetix could help me do automatic penetration tests for my APIs, that would be beneficial. I could supply it with maybe a Swagger file or a JSON file, and Acunetix would pick it up, scan all the endpoints according to the OWASP Top Ten, and give me remediation and actionable remediation reports.
I think currently on full scans of large apps, Acunetix takes time, so it can improve the timing part. I would rate Acunetix a nine. For the one point deduction, I would like to add that it can offer some customization, may require some learning for the advanced part, and the time it takes on large apps.
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
Nov 16, 2025
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. Regarding the needed improvements, I find that there are too many duplicate findings in reports; for example, if there are numerous XSS vulnerabilities reported, they are shown individually instead of being grouped together.
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.
I have experienced some problems yet can't recall the details. There was an issue related to updates from the internet, however, the support program was helpful in addressing it.
There is room for improvement in the pricing. Tenable is better integrated and offers many tools in a bundle. I would like to see the same thing in Acunetix. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with Acunetix's performance.
There could be extensions that help us perform test cases related to AI bots or element-based testing. Implementing such extensions internally could be beneficial for enhancing the testing capabilities. Sometimes it takes too much time to complete, maybe because the application is huge or we have not properly configured the scan settings. Due to these challenges, the scan often stops in between.
The initial concern that comes to mind is the cost as the pricing structure is significantly high, especially for the average user. It amounts to approximately $2,000 per year, excluding additional expenses. There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible. Another critical enhancement should focus on the tool's ability to bypass Web Application Firewalls. Currently, it falls short in this aspect, which can be a significant limitation.
They should include the features for reporting in the solution's next release. Also, a dashboard feature could help us view scanning targets segregated into different categories. In addition, there should be a feature to export the data into Excel Spreadsheet.
The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions. The solution is also costly and can use a price reduction.
Security Specialist at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jun 18, 2021
Normally, the product asks for the URL address before scanning a certain application. Acunetix is immediately used for web application scanning purposes for vulnerability assessment. 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. The pricing is a bit on the higher side.
The solution should work on dealing with the number of false positives it delivers. While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations.
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. They need more customized scans along with a way to edit their default payloads. While you can select which check to do, you can't add which payload to use.
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...
Every product needs to do continuous improvements. For now, if Acunetix could help me do automatic penetration tests for my APIs, that would be beneficial. I could supply it with maybe a Swagger file or a JSON file, and Acunetix would pick it up, scan all the endpoints according to the OWASP Top Ten, and give me remediation and actionable remediation reports.
I think Acunetix needs improvement since it is now working with Invicti, so the price list will need to be reconsidered.
I think currently on full scans of large apps, Acunetix takes time, so it can improve the timing part. I would rate Acunetix a nine. For the one point deduction, I would like to add that it can offer some customization, may require some learning for the advanced part, and the time it takes on large apps.
Acunetix may need to reconsider the cost or price compared to other vendors.
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. Regarding the needed improvements, I find that there are too many duplicate findings in reports; for example, if there are numerous XSS vulnerabilities reported, they are shown individually instead of being grouped together.
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.
Acunetix should focus more on partners for improvement.
I have experienced some problems yet can't recall the details. There was an issue related to updates from the internet, however, the support program was helpful in addressing it.
The interface API and other functionalities are very good. However, the cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side.
There is room for improvement in the pricing. Tenable is better integrated and offers many tools in a bundle. I would like to see the same thing in Acunetix. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with Acunetix's performance.
There could be extensions that help us perform test cases related to AI bots or element-based testing. Implementing such extensions internally could be beneficial for enhancing the testing capabilities. Sometimes it takes too much time to complete, maybe because the application is huge or we have not properly configured the scan settings. Due to these challenges, the scan often stops in between.
Acunetix needs to include agent analysis.
Acunetix needs to improve its cost.
The initial concern that comes to mind is the cost as the pricing structure is significantly high, especially for the average user. It amounts to approximately $2,000 per year, excluding additional expenses. There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible. Another critical enhancement should focus on the tool's ability to bypass Web Application Firewalls. Currently, it falls short in this aspect, which can be a significant limitation.
Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents.
They should include the features for reporting in the solution's next release. Also, a dashboard feature could help us view scanning targets segregated into different categories. In addition, there should be a feature to export the data into Excel Spreadsheet.
The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions. The solution is also costly and can use a price reduction.
There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others.
The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year.
Normally, the product asks for the URL address before scanning a certain application. Acunetix is immediately used for web application scanning purposes for vulnerability assessment. 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. The pricing is a bit on the higher side.
The solution should work on dealing with the number of false positives it delivers. While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations.
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. They need more customized scans along with a way to edit their default payloads. While you can select which check to do, you can't add which payload to use.