Acunetix vs Fortify Software Security Center comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.5, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 9.0. Invicti holds a 2.7% mindshare in SAST, compared to OpenText’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 38 Acunetix reviews

6,442 Views
3,994 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Fortify Software Security C...

Read 8 Fortify Software Security Center reviews

1,160 Views
1,102 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: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Fortify Software Security Center

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,757 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)

8th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (11th), Vulnerability Management (19th), DevSecOps (6th)

Fortify Software Security C...

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

19th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

4.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.7%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 1.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Acunetix	2.7%
Fortify Software Security Center	1.2%
Other	96.1%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar

Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees

Identifies vulnerabilities across bulk web applications but needs better support and cleaner reports

The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers. 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. In terms of reporting, Acunetix is excellent because it can generate different types of reports, such as an executive summary report, detailed reports, and developer reports that can be shared directly with developers. Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and OWASP. Acunetix provides a centralized report with compliance-related aspects and a vulnerability timeline, effectively helping reduce vulnerabilities and save time.

Read full review

Diego Caicedo Lescano

Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA

Enables centralized analysis and improves governance through seamless tool integration

The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console. You can centralize both static analysis and dynamic analysis, and correlate both analyses in one tool to get better results by combining those independent results from each solution. That is outstanding, and there is no tool I have seen on the market that offers these capabilities. I appreciate the interoperability with other solutions from Fortify Software Security Center. Because we are using Kiuwan, you can run Kiuwan analyses and integrate them with Fortify Software Security Center to get those results in a single console. That is a good console for centralizing things in one point. That is one of the best features of the on-premises Fortify.

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

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

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."

"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."

"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."

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

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

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

"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

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

"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."

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

"The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console."

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

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

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

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

More Fortify Software Security Center pros

Cons

"Acunetix may need to reconsider the cost or price compared to other vendors."

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

"The solution's pricing could be better."

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

"Improving the handling of false positives would be beneficial because it can be challenging to trust the findings flagged by Acunetix, and those findings must be manually validated."

"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."

"I think currently on full scans of large apps, Acunetix takes time, so it can improve the timing part."

"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

"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."

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

"The support for Fortify on-premises is the same as for the other products. I would say the support is not good and I would rate it a three out of ten."

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

"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."

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The solution is expensive."

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

"The price is exceptionally high."

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

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The solution is priced fair."

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

"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

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	17

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	3

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'm using Acunetix to automate security checks. Acunetix helped me catch common vulnerability issues early and improved the overall security posture of the application before development, specifica...

See all answers

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

I would advise anyone or any startup looking to engage in the security part to directly use Acunetix, as this will help in most aspects. I would rate this product a nine out of ten.

See all answers

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

The pricing for the on-premises Fortify is expensive.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?

In my opinion, there are no areas that could be improved with Fortify Software Security Center. I would say it is a good product and a mature product. However, the SAST has many improvement areas. ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?

We have installed Fortify Static Code Analysis, SAST, in Ecuador in two customers. The Fortify ScanCentral includes three components: SAST, Fortify Software Security Center, and the WebInspect.

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 14% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 25% of the time

Checkmarx IaC Security / KICS vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 9% of the time

Coverity Static vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 7% of the time

Snyk vs Fortify Software Security Center

Compared 5% of the time

More Fortify Software Security Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

February 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2026

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

February 2026

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: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,757 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.