We performed a comparison between Acunetix and GitGuardian Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The scalability is good. 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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"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."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The solution is highly stable."
"When they give you a description of what happened, it's really easy to follow and to retest. And the ability to retest is something that you don't have in other solutions. If a secret was detected, you can retest if it is still there. It will show you if it is in the history."
"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."
"You can also assign tasks to specific teams or people to complete, such as assigning something to the "blue team" or saying that this person needs to do this, and that person needs to do that. That is a great feature because you can actually manage your team internally in GitGuardian."
"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."
"GitGuardian has also helped us develop a security-minded culture. We're serious about shift left and getting better about code security. I think a lot of people are getting more mindful about what a secret is."
"The most valuable feature is the alerts when secrets are leaked and we can look at particular repositories to see if there are any outstanding problems. In addition, the solution's detection capabilities seem very broad. We have no concerns there."
"It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smaller company and have never changed in size, but we got to the point where we felt the service brought us value, and we want to pay for it. We also wanted an SLA for technical support and whatnot, so we switched to a paid plan. Without that, they had a super-generous, free tier, and I was immensely impressed with it."
"The most valuable feature of GitGuardian is that it finds tokens and passwords. That's why we need this tool. It minimizes the possibility of security violations that we cannot find on our own."
"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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"One improvement that I'd like to see is a cleaner for Splunk logs. It would be nice to have a middle man for anything we send or receive from Splunk forwarders. I'd love to see it get cleaned by GitGuardian or caught to make sure we don't have any secrets getting committed to Splunk logs."
"The purchasing process is convoluted compared to Snyk, the other tool we use. It's like night and day because you only need to punch in your credit card, and you're set. With GitGuardian, getting a quote took two or three weeks. We paid for it in December but have not settled that payment yet."
"It took us a while to get new patterns introduced into the pattern reporting process."
"Other solutions have a live chat feature that provides instant results. Waiting for an agent to reply to an email is less ideal than an instant conversation with a support employee. That's a complaint so minor I almost hesitate to mention it."
"We have been somewhat confused by the dashboard at times."
"The main thing for me is the customization for some of the healthcare-specific identifiers that we want to validate. There should be some ability, which is coming in the near future, to have custom identifiers. Being in healthcare, we have pretty specific patterns that we need to match for PHI or PII. Having that would add a little bit extra to it."
"GitGuardian could have more detailed information on what software engineers can do. It only provides some highly generic feedback when a secret is detected. They should have outside documentation. We send this to our software engineers, who are still doing the commits. It's the wrong way to work, but they are accustomed to doing it this way. When they go into that ticket, they see a few instructions that might be confusing. If I see a leaked secret committed two years ago, it's not enough to undo that commit. I need to go in there, change all my code to utilize GitHub secrets, and go on AWS to validate my key."
"They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while GitGuardian Platform is ranked 8th in Application Security Tools with 22 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while GitGuardian Platform is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitGuardian Platform writes "It dramatically improved our ability to detect secrets, saved us time, and reduced our mean time to remediation". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas GitGuardian Platform is most compared with SonarQube, Cycode, GitHub Advanced Security, Snyk and Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention. See our Acunetix vs. GitGuardian Platform report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors, and best DevSecOps vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
