

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.
The AI features that they have and with which we can rewrite the pipeline and troubleshoot issues significantly saved time.
By adopting templates and various different pipelines across our own IDP platform, we have saved upwards of 30 to 40% of development time.
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.
We have not faced any customer support issues, with tickets resolved in less than a four-day SLA.
There was an instance when I faced issues with third-party plugins, and after raising a support ticket, they responded in a few hours with a documentation link that resolved my issue.
Acunetix can handle increasing workloads and more applications easily.
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.
Harness is completely stable, and we are using it in production without facing any stability issues at all.
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.
I could supply it with maybe a Swagger file or a JSON file, and Acunetix would pick it up, scan all the endpoints according to the OWASP Top Ten, and give me remediation and actionable remediation reports.
Acunetix should have better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps.
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.
Improved documentation and onboarding tutorials would help accelerate adoption.
Harness can be improved by providing more clarity on the credits it issues for Harness Cloud, as it has a tiered pricing structure involving license and credit costs, which can get confusing.
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.
The licensing cost is a little bit too high.
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.
The platform also supports cloud-native environments and Kubernetes deployments, making pipeline management easier, and its automation capabilities significantly improve speed and reliability.
If something goes wrong, I can use AI troubleshooting to build or test my fails and analyze the logs, suggesting the fixes.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Harness | 0.7% |
| Acunetix | 2.6% |
| Other | 96.7% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 18 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 7 |
| Large Enterprise | 19 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 4 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 1 |
| Large Enterprise | 10 |
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?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.
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.