Acunetix vs Fortify Software Security Center comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText is ranked #26 with an average rating of 8.3. Invicti holds a 3.4% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 0.4% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 32 Acunetix reviews

4,309 Views
3,462 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Fortify Software Security C...

Read 6 Fortify Software Security Center reviews

437 Views
319 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Fortify Software Security C...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Acunetix and Fortify Software Security Center are strong competitors in the software security solutions category. Acunetix leads in pricing and ease of deployment, while Fortify Software Security Center offers advanced functionality.

Features: Acunetix offers automated scanning capabilities that help detect vulnerabilities efficiently, making it suitable for web application security. Its simplicity in automation is a standout. Fortify Software Security Center focusses on comprehensive code analysis, providing broad coverage in identifying code vulnerabilities and offering detailed feedback.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could enhance its reporting functionalities for richer insights and integrate more seamlessly with various tools. Users feel its scanning speed and update frequency may also need improvement. Fortify Software Security Center should work on improving integration with development tools to enhance workflow, refine their user interface to reduce complexity, and consider simpler initial setups.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix has straightforward deployment options that are user-friendly and is supported by responsive customer service. Fortify Software Security Center, despite its complex deployment requiring careful setup, benefits from knowledgeable support helping bridge these challenges effectively.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix is seen as cost-effective, offering competitive pricing and solid ROI, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. Fortify Software Security Center, while initially more expensive, is perceived to deliver higher ROI for users interested in comprehensive security, making the investment worthwhile.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,686 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)

14th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (17th), Vulnerability Management (23rd), DevSecOps (6th)

Fortify Software Security C...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

26th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

8.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.4%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

AnubhavGoswami

Compliance Manager at Compunnel

Attractive automated reports with boost user productivity and an easy setup

The primary use is mainly related to vulnerability assessment, including both public and internal IP addresses By using this tool, we have reduced the workload and increased the productivity of users. It generates automated reports. This feature is beneficial when sharing reports with clients as…

Read full review

Jonathan Steyn

Principal Technical Consultant at EOH

Comprehensive vulnerability analysis and customization features with decent pricing

Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances. WebInspect supports a number of APIs and web endpoints. I find its feature of macro recording allows for testing vulnerabilities during multi-factor authentication sessions very valuable. I appreciate the ability to further analyze data with tools like Audit Workbench.

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

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

"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."

"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."

"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."

"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."

"The usability and overall scan results are good."

"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."

More Acunetix pros

"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."

"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."

"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."

"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."

"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."

"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."

"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."

Cons

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

"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."

"The cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."

"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."

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

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."

"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."

More Acunetix cons

"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."

"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."

"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."

"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."

"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."

"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."

"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."

"The price is exceptionally high."

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

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

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

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."

"The solution is priced fair."

"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are 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

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Government

Manufacturing Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

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?

I typically use Acunetix ( /products/acunetix-reviews ) to identify vulnerabilities for clients.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

I would recommend Acunetix to others. Overall, I rate this solution seven out of ten.

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Software Security Center?

You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Software Security Center?

In the beginning, it was difficult for me to verify that our usage of Fortify Software Security Center corresponded to the license and criteria. Now, we have negotiated a number of details to respe...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?

I would like the false positive issue to diminish. I have experienced a lot of false positives, but I think this is due to using an older version. I hope the new version will resolve my problem.

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 17% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 12% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 10% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

Fortify on Demand vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 57% of the time

More Fortify Software Security Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

April 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

April 2025

Download Fortify Software Security Center product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect

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

Software Security Center enables management, development, and security teams to work together to triage, track, validate, automate, and manage software security activities.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center

April 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center 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.