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

Acunetix vs Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing 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:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 9.3%, down from 10.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Checkmarx One is 16.1%, down from 21.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.7%, down from 11.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
DevSecOps
 

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.
Syed Hasan - PeerSpot reviewer
Partner experiences excellent technical support and seamless initial setup
In my opinion, if we are able to extract or show the report, and because everything is going towards agent tech and GenAI, it would be beneficial if it could get integrated with our code base and do the fix automatically. It could suggest how the code base is written and automatically populate the source code with three different solution options to choose from. This would be really helpful.
Navin N - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution
We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this.  Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

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 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."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"It is a stable product."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
 

Cons

"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"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 cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."
"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."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"Checkmarx could improve the speed of the scans."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"The scanner could be better."
 

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."
"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."
"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."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"The price is exceptionally high."
"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 average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.
862,624 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
 

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 t...
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 penetrati...
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 DevSecOp...
What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as ...
What do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.
What do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?
The solution's technical support was very helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
The price of Fortify WebInspect is high, with the cost depending on the number of virtual users. It is approximately ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate. The ...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Snyk, GitGuardian and others in DevSecOps. Updated: July 2025.
862,624 professionals have used our research since 2012.