Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the DevSecOps category. Invicti is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.4, while OpenText is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 8.3% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 6.0% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,943 Views
594 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,330 Views
633 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Acunetix and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing are significant contenders in application security, with OpenText holding the upper hand due to its comprehensive features despite its higher cost.

Features: Acunetix offers login sequence recording, rapid scanning capabilities, and thorough vulnerability detection. OpenText provides advanced scan configurations, superior detection abilities, and detailed reporting features.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could improve by reducing false positives and optimizing resource-heavy scans, along with enhancing report simplification and integration. OpenText is noted for its complexity and high cost, with users requesting faster scans and more intuitive reports.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix and OpenText both support diverse deployment options, including on-premises and cloud. Acunetix offers supportive customer service, while OpenText is praised for prompt customer service resolutions.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix is seen as expensive with recent price hikes, yet it delivers strong ROI by enhancing risk reduction. OpenText’s higher cost is justified by extensive features, offering significant value in large enterprises.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 866,956 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

6th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th), Vulnerability Management (21st)

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) (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 8.3%, down from 11.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.0%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Acunetix	8.3%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	6.0%
Other	85.7%

DevSecOps

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

Navin N

Global ISO 27001 Program Lead at DXC Technology

Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution

We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this. Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

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

"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."

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

"The solution is highly stable."

"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."

"The product is really easy to use."

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

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

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

More Acunetix pros

"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."

"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."

"Technical support has been good."

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

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

"The solution is easy to use."

"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"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."

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

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

"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."

"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."

"There is room for improvement in the pricing."

"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."

More Acunetix cons

"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."

"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"The initial setup was complex."

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

"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."

"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."

"The scanner could be better."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is exceptionally high."

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

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

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

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The price is okay."

"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."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"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."

"This solution is very expensive."

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

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

866,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

University

Financial Services Firm

15%

Government

15%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Computer Software Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

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

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?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

See all answers

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

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

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?

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...

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

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 17% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

ImmuniWeb vs Acunetix

Compared 3% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 17% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

September 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

August 2025

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus WebInspect, 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

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

July 2025

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: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

866,956 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.