Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the DevSecOps category. Invicti is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.9, while OpenText is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 6.0% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 7.3% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 37 Acunetix reviews

8,861 Views
975 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

4,556 Views
1,048 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Acunetix and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing compete in the application security testing category. Both have unique strengths, with Acunetix being valued for its flexibility and integrations, and OpenText offering in-depth vulnerability management.

Features: Acunetix offers comprehensive upload and scheduling capabilities, fast scanning, and detailed reporting. It supports both cloud and on-premises environments with strong CI/CD tool integration. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing provides interactive scanning, detailed vulnerability insights, and wide-reaching scan coverages, with dynamic crawling and scanning suited for enterprise needs.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix faces challenges with false positives, API scanning, and its cost-prohibitive licensing model. It could improve cloud integration and reduce configuration complexity. OpenText requires enhancements in user experience, automation, and better integration with modern cloud configurations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix supports diverse deployment modes, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, with reasonable customer support but potential delays in response. OpenText focuses on on-premises use and offers responsive technical support, although it may have a less flexible deployment process affecting time-sensitive projects.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix users report pricing concerns due to frequent increases and a complex licensing model. Nevertheless, they acknowledge ROI through time savings and security improvements. OpenText, while expensive, justifies its cost with detailed security insights, though pricing transparency is a concern. Both show ROI via reduced vulnerabilities and improved security, with Acunetix possibly being more beneficial for smaller organizations.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 896,202 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 DevSecOps

5th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (15th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (8th), Vulnerability Management (30th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in DevSecOps

8th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 6.0%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 7.3%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Acunetix	6.0%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	7.3%
Other	86.7%

DevSecOps

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

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

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

"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."

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."

"Acunetix gives us code-level identification of vulnerabilities and a good understanding of the code-level vulnerability fixes, which is much more helpful for us because we can understand how to fix the vulnerabilities at the code level."

"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."

"As a team, it's helped us to deliver better security assessments."

"The scalability is more than good; it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have, and this solution is simple enough, especially with the cloud."

"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."

"Login Sequence Recorder, scan throttling, and fantastic reporting output are the most valuable features."

More Acunetix pros

"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."

"The solution is easy to use."

"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."

"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."

"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."

"The product is a good option for enterprise-level organizations."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"Tool is quite expensive though compared to other tools."

"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"However, it doesn't seem very helpful or useful for scanning web services, and that has what I feel that the organization could work better on that."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More Acunetix cons

"The scanner could be better."

"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."

"The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed."

"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."

"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The price is okay."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"This solution is very expensive."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

896,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Government

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	19

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

My main use of Acunetix is to scan my web application. I mostly deal with web applications and with Acunetix Network Security Component, but I have not activated the network component before and wi...

See all answers

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

I am still working with Acunetix, and we have even moved to their new platform, Invicti. I have requested a demo for Acunetix DeepScan technology, but I have yet to go through DeepScan. That was th...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?

I would say the pricing is average, but still, it is higher than low.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 27% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Check Point CloudGuard Code Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

May 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

Acunetix is a dynamic application security tool used globally for web application vulnerability scanning, focusing on SQL injection and cross-site scripting.

Acunetix provides a comprehensive web vulnerability assessment platform designed for identifying and remediating security threats. Users benefit from its ability to schedule scans, boasting a fast detection rate for common vulnerabilities. The tool's centralized dashboard helps organizations with compliance monitoring and features such as crawling and login sequence enhancements, contributing depth to its security assessments. Despite high praise for its integration capabilities and automated scanning that saves time, pricing and false positives present challenges. Organizations often use Acunetix to maintain internal security and evaluate pre-release environments.

What are Acunetix's main features?

Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed reports assist in security analysis and compliance audits.
User-Friendly Interface: Simple navigation enhances user experience.
Scheduled Scans: Automation of scans allows for continuous monitoring.
Fast Detection: Quickly identifies vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting.
Integration Capabilities: Scalable solutions with compatibility across applications.
Crawling & Login Sequence: Improves depth in security analysis.

What benefits should businesses look for in reviews?

Low False Positive Rate: Accurate vulnerability detection saves time in analysis.
Time Efficiency: Automated scans reduce manual workload, improving team productivity.
Scalability: Integration features help accommodate growth and complexity.
Compliance Support: Centralized dashboard supports regulatory compliance checks.

In industries like finance, healthcare, and technology, Acunetix assists in protecting sensitive data through robust scanning and reporting capabilities. Its ability to perform dynamic assessments makes it a chosen tool in regulatory environments and development settings, offering both internal security inspections and pre-release evaluations.

Invicti

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

April 2026

Free Report: Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

896,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best DevSecOps vendors.

We monitor all DevSecOps 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.