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

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

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)
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (22nd), DevSecOps (6th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.5%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.6%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"It generates automated reports."
"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The scalability is good. 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 OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."
"The solution is scalable."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"I consider OWASP Zap to be the most effective solution overall; being open source allows integration with other systems via OWASP Zap APIs."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
 

Cons

"Currently only supports web scanning."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"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."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word ​list, or manually created."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"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."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"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."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."
"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"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 is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
859,687 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
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,...
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...
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 ...
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...
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.
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,687 professionals have used our research since 2012.