Acunetix vs Digital.ai Application Security comparison

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

"The usability and overall scan results are good."

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

"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 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."

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

"I used the tool to prepare for the interview as a Business Developer. It helped me improve my understanding on software security."

"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"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."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."

"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."

"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."

"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."

"I would like the tool to integrate AI and automation that is dedicated to detecting software vulnerabilities."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

"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."

"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 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."

"The price is exceptionally high."

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