Acunetix vs OWASP Zap comparison

Invicti and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.4, while OWASP is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 3.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 4.6% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,943 Views
3,863 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,461 Views
7,700 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 27, 2025

Acunetix and OWASP Zap compete in the web application security testing category. Acunetix appears to have the upper hand due to its advanced reporting and scanning features.

Features: Acunetix offers a web-based interface, the Interactive Application Security Testing (IAS) module, and comprehensive scheduling and reporting features. OWASP Zap, being open-source and free, supports automation and integration capabilities but lacks in-depth reporting.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could enhance its IAS module, simplify manual replication of findings, and improve user interface intuitiveness. OWASP Zap would benefit from better documentation and reporting features, reduced false positives, and improved scanning speed and coverage.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix supports versatile deployment methods, both on-premises and hybrid cloud. Customer support is mixed with occasional delays. OWASP Zap mainly supports on-premises deployment with community support and a ticketing system for customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix is a premium tool with increased pricing over time, but users report positive ROI due to its comprehensive features. OWASP Zap offers great value as a free, open-source tool suitable for smaller businesses but requires more manual effort for equivalent security assurance.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,341 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)

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

11th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.2%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.6%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OWASP Zap	4.6%
Acunetix	3.2%
Other	92.2%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

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

"The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"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."

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

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

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

"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 generates automated reports."

More Acunetix pros

"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."

"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."

"We use the solution for security testing."

"Simple to use, good user interface."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."

"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."

"The API is exceptional."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"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."

"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."

"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."

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

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"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. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."

"I rate its stability six out of ten."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

More Acunetix cons

"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."

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

"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."

"The product reporting could be improved."

"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."

"Sometimes, we get some false positives."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

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

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"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 pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"This solution is open source and free."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"The tool is open-source."

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

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

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

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

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

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

867,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

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.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

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 10% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Tenable.io Web Application Scanning vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 19% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 5% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

September 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

August 2025

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

September 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,341 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.