No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Acunetix vs Ixia BreakingPoint comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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)
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (13th), Vulnerability Management (28th), DevSecOps (6th)
Ixia BreakingPoint
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
32nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.7%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ixia BreakingPoint is 0.7%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Acunetix2.7%
Ixia BreakingPoint0.7%
Other96.6%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
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 Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and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.
Sai Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities."
"After two years it's about 300%."
"It generates automated reports."
"Overall, I believe Acunetix to be one of the best products on the market."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"With Acunetix, we cut the time to make infrastructures and web applications for our colleagues more secure, and for one application with two or three critical vulnerabilities and some other vulnerabilities, it took about a week to remediate issues because the scan and findings were really fast."
"It has been able to find some vulnerabilities, and we've been able to remediate our websites and vulnerabilities, thanks to Acunetix."
"As a team, it's helped us to deliver better security assessments."
"The most valuable feature is Layer 7 traffic generation such as Facebook, Netflix, WhatsApp."
"BPS VE evaluation was used for testing LTE Network elements with a focus on user plane testing BPS VE along with its UI and new concepts to reduce the complexity of manual testing to a large extent."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"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

"Our experience with Acunetix has not been good, so we are in the process of switching solutions."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing."
"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 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."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"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."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"Currently BPS VE's REST API was just developed (some specific functionalities are implemented) and can be improved for better control over the tool using scripts, which help in test automation."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The SSL simulation is realistic but some kinds of tests work imperfectly."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The price could be better."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"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."
"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."
"The solution is expensive."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"There is no differentiation in licenses for Breaking Point. For one license, you will get all the features. There is no complexity in that."
"We have a one year subscription license for $25,000 US Dollars."
"The price is high. We pay for the license monthly."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of the solution is expensive."
"or us, the pricing is somewhere around $12,000 a year. I'm unsure as to what new licenses now cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
In a typical enterprise environment, Acunetix is mainly used for visibility, detection, and investigation across network traffic. The main use cases usually fall into a few core areas, with primary...
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I advise that Acunetix is the best option. Invest time in proper initial configuration and scope definitions. The tool is powerful, but its effectiveness depends heavily on how the authenticated ar...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?
Everything is perfect and good, including the pricing and all related aspects.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Corsa Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.