Acunetix vs ERPScan SMART Cybersecurity Platform comparison

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"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."

"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."

"The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities."

"The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning."

"Acunetix helps reduce the man-days and effort needed for scanning bulk applications through automated assessments, allowing good dashboard visualization that can be reported easily to management, providing complete visibility on vulnerability metrics."

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

"By helping me patch vulnerabilities, Acunetix has led to measurable outcomes like time saved and fewer incidents."

"The core scanning, the scanning process, has got a very nice pass management module. It's fantastic."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"Acunetix should improve by further reducing false positives and providing more customized reports, plus better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps."

"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."

"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."

"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."

"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."

"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."

"The anomaly detection could be improved."

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

"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 price is exceptionally high."

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

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

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

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