Acunetix vs Checkmarx SAST comparison

Invicti and Checkmarx are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.3, while Checkmarx is ranked #21 with an average rating of 9.0. Invicti holds a 3.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to Checkmarx’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Checkmarx users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

6,151 Views
3,998 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Checkmarx SAST

Read 2 Checkmarx SAST reviews

745 Views
738 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Checkmarx SAST

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Checkmarx SAST based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Checkmarx SAST Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Checkmarx SAST

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,164 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)

Checkmarx SAST

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

21st

Average Rating

9.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 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 Checkmarx SAST is 1.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Cuneyt KALPAKOGLU Phd.

Founder & Chairman at Endpoint-labs Cyber Security R&D

Identifying code vulnerabilities swiftly with no need to complete the coding and offers good security

The primary use case of Checkmarx SAST is application security, specifically static application security testing. It is essential and the root of this concept I did not find measurable information about the financial benefits or return on investment. The most important competitive advantage and…

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 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."

"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."

"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."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."

"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."

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

More Acunetix pros

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."

"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."

Cons

"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."

"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"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."

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."

"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."

"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."

More Acunetix cons

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability."

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."

"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"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."

"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."

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

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

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

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

Information not available

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

865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

24%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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.

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

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?

We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?

We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?

We integrated Checkmarx with our pipelines in Jenkins. We had it fully automated for static security scanning to protect our company against attacks.

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 17% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

Checkmarx One vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 66% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 6% of the time

GitLab vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 5% of the time

Semgrep vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 5% of the time

GitHub Code Scanning vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 5% of the time

More Checkmarx SAST Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

August 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

August 2025

Download Checkmarx SAST product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

SAST

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

Checkmarx SAST provides advanced static application security testing by identifying vulnerabilities in source code. It's ideal for ISOs, security professionals, and developers striving to secure applications during development.

Checkmarx SAST is known for its powerful code scanning capabilities that integrate seamlessly into existing development environments. It supports a wide range of programming languages, which makes it applicable for diverse development projects. Some users suggest improvements in the scan performance speed and enhanced support in handling false positives to further optimize workflow efficiency.

What are the standout features of Checkmarx SAST?

Language Support: Offers broad language support catering to multiple coding frameworks.
Integration Flexibility: Seamlessly integrates with existing CI/CD pipelines and developer tools.
Comprehensive Scanning: Detects security vulnerabilities early in the development process.
Detailed Reporting: Provides comprehensive reports that help prioritize remediation efforts.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Improved Security Posture: Enhances application security by catching vulnerabilities early.
Cost Efficiency: Reduces costs associated with post-deployment issue resolution.
Developer Empowerment: Allows developers to identify and fix issues independently.
Regulatory Compliance: Assists in meeting compliance requirements efficiently.

Implemented across various industries, Checkmarx SAST supports sectors like finance, healthcare, and technology with their stringent security requirements. By integrating seamlessly into existing workflows, it ensures that applications remain secure while not disrupting industry-specific processes.

Checkmarx

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Checkmarx SAST

July 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Checkmarx SAST

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Checkmarx SAST and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. Checkmarx SAST 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.