No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
6.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th), Vulnerability Management (29th)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in DevSecOps
7th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 6.1%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 7.2%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Acunetix6.1%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing7.2%
Other86.7%
DevSecOps
 

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
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 Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and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.
AP
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"Login Sequence Recorder, scan throttling, and fantastic reporting output are the most valuable features."
"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."
"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"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."
"Overall, the tool is efficient enough to identify and track your vulnerabilities and it's good for intelligence scanning purposes."
"Every organization who has their assets over the internet and are exposed to a public website needs to have vulnerability assessment using Acunetix."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"The product is a good option for enterprise-level organizations."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."
"My experience with technical support has been good."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
 

Cons

"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."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"One of the biggest problems I've had with Acunetix is that it's hard to replicate things manually because you don't get the raw packet."
"Acunetix provides the benefit of saving time for an end user. I would not say it saves money because the cost and license of Acunetix is far more than what others offer."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"In terms of additional features, we are currently missing some tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"I rate its stability six out of ten."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."
"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."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price is exceptionally high."
"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 is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"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 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."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The price is okay."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"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."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.
892,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise18
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
 

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...
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?
I would say the pricing is average, but still, it is higher than low.
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 ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
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 produ...
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...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
892,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.