

Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
It saves a significant amount of time by covering attack surfaces.
I have seen a return on investment, as Acunetix helps reduce the man-days and effort needed for scanning bulk applications through automated assessments.
I have seen a return on investment with Acunetix, including time saved and cost reduction, because it provides us threats on our web application servers.
By adopting templates and various different pipelines across our own IDP platform, we have saved upwards of 30 to 40% of development time.
Time is saved because we now save engineering time. Before, it required two to three engineers actively monitoring production during deployments, but after starting to use Harness, there is zero or minimal manual monitoring.
With Harness, the release process decreased from three or four hours to one or two hours, making deployments much quicker.
For high-severity issues, they reach out within two to three hours, and for critical issues, a response is received within 15 minutes.
The technical support from Invicti is very good and fast.
Support staff not being familiar with the problem.
We have rarely faced issues with Harness tech support.
Harness customer support is really helpful anytime I try to reach out; they are available to assist with any issues I am facing.
We have been receiving incident reports whenever an incident occurs on Harness, and they are usually quick to respond.
Acunetix can handle increasing workloads and more applications easily.
Acunetix's scalability for my growing needs is great; it is a very scalable product compared to others.
Our entire organization uses it with hundreds of applications, and it supports this scale effectively.
It is able to work on our infrastructure side, which is EKS, and we are able to handle our organization growth effectively for an enterprise use case.
When I integrated Harness to more than 20 applications in one place, it becomes less stable.
I did not need to reach customer support because the product is very stable.
We have rarely faced issues with Harness tech support.
Harness is decently stable.
The main concern is related to false positives; Acunetix needs to work on identifying valid and invalid findings.
Acunetix should have better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps.
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 is not a lot of good support for pipeline as code, and I often find myself not using pipeline as code the way other platforms such as GitHub Actions or Jenkins integrate pipeline as code.
An improvement idea is better guided onboarding with more opinionated defaults and examples.
Previously, when deploying a version that had been deployed successfully before, it sometimes failed upon trying again, which seems to be an intermittent issue about stability.
The pricing cost is affordable for small and mid-sized organizations, and when compared to Checkmarx, it is significantly affordable, as Checkmarx is quite expensive.
We secured a special licensing model for penetration testing companies, which is cost-effective.
The pricing of Acunetix is pretty expensive and could be improved.
From what I understand with respect to Harness, licensing and setup costs were relatively low for an enterprise, and the pricing was more catered toward enterprises who would invest in the technology.
Its most valuable role is in enhancing security by identifying potential vulnerabilities efficiently.
The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities.
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.
Harness uses AI to suggest errors in case of deployment failures.
Meantime to recovery (MTTR) improved from 30 to 60 minutes before Harness to 5 to 10 minutes now.
The best features in Harness are its user-friendliness and setup configuration.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Acunetix | 2.9% |
| Harness | 0.6% |
| Other | 96.5% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 15 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 7 |
| Large Enterprise | 17 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Large Enterprise | 7 |
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.
Harness offers a comprehensive toolset for automating deployment processes and enhancing software update efficiency. It's lauded for its CI/CD capabilities, feature flagging, and real-time deployment monitoring. Key features include an intuitive UI, secret management, and robust rollback functionalities, all contributing to improved productivity and reduced errors in DevOps environments.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.