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 #7 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 6.1% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 7.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 36 Acunetix reviews

7,596 Views
760 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,765 Views
828 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: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 890,071 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

6.6

Number of Reviews

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

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
Product	Mindshare (%)
Acunetix	6.1%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	7.2%
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

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."

"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."

"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."

"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."

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

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"The solution is comprehensive and easy to use."

More Acunetix pros

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."

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

"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."

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

"Easy to scan and then share scan reports, it has definitely streamlined many processes."

"Technical support has been good."

"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 transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"I believe Acunetix can improve customer support, as the dedicated support staff are often unfamiliar with problems and troubleshooting, leading to communication gaps that delay issue resolution."

"There are quite a few false positives that come out. It's mostly based upon finding XSS vulnerabilities, even though we know that XSS vulnerabilities do not exist within some of the web applications because of some frameworks we're using."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"Our experience with Acunetix has not been good, so we are in the process of switching solutions."

"I rate its stability six out of ten."

"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."

"The solution should work on dealing with the number of false positives it delivers."

"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 solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps."

"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."

"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."

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"We have often encountered scanning errors."

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."

"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."

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."

"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."

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

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

"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."

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

"The price is exceptionally high."

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

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

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

"The price is okay."

"This solution is very expensive."

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

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

890,071 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

13%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

14%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	18

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

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Acunetix

Compared 3% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 24% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% 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 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

April 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

April 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 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

February 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: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

890,071 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.