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 5.8% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 7.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 38 Acunetix reviews

10,102 Views
1,111 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

5,274 Views
1,266 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 896,563 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 (8th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (5th), 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) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 5.8%, down from 9.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 7.1%, up from 7.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Acunetix	5.8%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	7.1%
Other	87.1%

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

"Acunetix is the best service in the world."

"Overall, the tool is efficient enough to identify and track your vulnerabilities and it's good for intelligence scanning purposes."

"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."

"The product is really easy to use."

"The solution is comprehensive and easy to use."

"After two years it's about 300%."

"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."

"It generates automated reports."

More Acunetix pros

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

"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."

"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."

"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."

"The solution is easy to use."

"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 solution's technical support was very helpful."

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

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"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 pricing is a bit on the higher side."

"The Acunetix licensing and pricing model is somewhat complicated. If we calculated all of our domains and sub-domains, the sum would be huge; that's why we thought of leaving Acunetix."

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

"The cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

More Acunetix cons

"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 solution is on the expensive side. It's something that clients comment on."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

"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."

"The scanner could be better."

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

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"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."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

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."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

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

"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."

"The price is okay."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

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

"This solution is very expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

896,563 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%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
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

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

Tenable Nessus 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

Veracode 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

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

896,563 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.