Acunetix vs Ixia BreakingPoint comparison

Invicti and Keysight Technologies are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.4, while Keysight Technologies is ranked #34. Invicti holds a 3.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to Keysight Technologies’s 0.4% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Keysight Technologies users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,850 Views
3,803 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Ixia BreakingPoint

Read 8 Ixia BreakingPoint reviews

813 Views
715 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Ixia BreakingPoint

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Acunetix and Ixia BreakingPoint lead in network security and testing products. Acunetix often has the upper hand due to its intuitive support and ease of deployment, while Ixia BreakingPoint stands out for its advanced features.

Features: Acunetix provides robust scanning capabilities, vulnerability management, and an intuitive interface, which are critical for web application security. Ixia BreakingPoint is noted for its comprehensive testing tools, realistic traffic simulations, and advanced feature set, which offer a broader value in network security simulations.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could benefit from better integration options with third-party tools, broader interoperability, and enhanced user interface customization. Ixia BreakingPoint users have suggested improvements in streamlined updates, better documentation, and simplifying its complex interface for ease of use.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix is easy to deploy and has reliable customer service, which users appreciate for its simplicity and quick adoption. Ixia BreakingPoint deployment is more complex; however, its extensive customer support is helpful in overcoming initial setup challenges and ensures a supportive experience for users.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix is cost-effective, offering a good return on investment with quick vulnerability resolution, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. Ixia BreakingPoint involves a higher initial cost, which users find justified by its expansive capabilities and feature depth, making it suitable for those ready to invest in broader network security functionality.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,566 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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (23rd), DevSecOps (6th)

Ixia BreakingPoint

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

34th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ixia BreakingPoint is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Acunetix	3.1%
Ixia BreakingPoint	0.4%
Other	96.5%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

Sai Prasad

Staff QA Engineer at Virsec

Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions

Once, when I raised a ticket regarding a hardware or software issue, the solution's support team visited our company to discuss and find out ways to solve the problem. Sometimes, they asked us to send several photos from the back and front end to identify the issue. It was time-consuming as we were occupied with some other testing simultaneously. Instead, it would have been great if they could have visited our company and rectified the problem.

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

"The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."

"It generates automated reports."

"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."

"The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities."

"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."

"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."

"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."

"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."

More Acunetix pros

"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."

"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."

"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."

"It is a scalable solution."

"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."

"I like that we can test cloud applications."

"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."

Cons

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."

"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."

"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."

"There is room for improvement in the pricing."

"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."

"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."

"I rate its stability six out of ten."

More Acunetix cons

"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."

"The price could be better."

"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."

"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."

"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."

"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."

"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

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

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

"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."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."

"There is no differentiation in licenses for Breaking Point. For one license, you will get all the features. There is no complexity in that."

"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."

"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."

"The solution is expensive."

"The price of the solution is expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Large Enterprise	3

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner is automated scanning and detection of security vulnerabilities in web applications, websites, and APIs.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 16% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

Spirent CyberFlood vs Ixia BreakingPoint

Compared 73% of the time

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs Ixia BreakingPoint

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Ixia BreakingPoint

Compared 14% of the time

More Ixia BreakingPoint Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

October 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

September 2025

Download Ixia BreakingPoint product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

No data available

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

By simulating real-world legitimate traffic, distributed denial of service (DDoS), exploits, malware, and fuzzing, BreakingPoint validates an organization’s security infrastructure, reduces the risk of network degradation by almost 80%, and increases attack readiness by nearly 70%.

Keysight Technologies

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

Corsa Technology

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint

September 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

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.