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

Acunetix vs Contrast Security Protect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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 Application Security Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th), Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)
Contrast Security Protect
Ranking in Application Security Tools
30th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.6%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Contrast Security Protect is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Acunetix2.6%
Contrast Security Protect0.7%
Other96.7%
Application Security Tools
 

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.
Akshay Waghmare - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable DevSecOps product that gives fewer false positives
We use the product for DevSecOps.  The product gives a few false positives. We get 99 percent true positives.  Contrast Security Protect needs to improve integration.  I have been using the product for a year.  Contrast Security Protect is stable.  The solution is scalable. My company has ten…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"It generates automated reports."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The product gives a few false positives. We get 99 percent true positives."
"The solution has excellent real-time capabilities."
"Protect provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks."
 

Cons

"The cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing."
"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."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."
"There's room for improvement in the initial setup."
"Protect's reporting GUI is very basic. To get all statuses from the APIs, we needed to write our own KPI dashboard to provide reports."
"Contrast Security Protect needs to improve integration."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."
"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."
"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 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 price is exceptionally high."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
8%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
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.
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...
What do you like most about Contrast Security Protect?
The product gives a few false positives. We get 99 percent true positives.
What needs improvement with Contrast Security Protect?
Contrast Security Protect needs to improve integration.
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
Contrast Protect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Contrast Security Protect and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.