Acunetix vs Ixia BreakingPoint comparison

Invicti and Keysight Technologies are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.3, while Keysight Technologies is ranked #35. Invicti holds a 3.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to Keysight Technologies’s 0.2% 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

4,230 Views
1,142 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Ixia BreakingPoint

Read 8 Ixia BreakingPoint reviews

723 Views
17 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: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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)

13th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (22nd), DevSecOps (6th)

Ixia BreakingPoint

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

35th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.5%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ixia BreakingPoint is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

"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."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."

"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

More Acunetix pros

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

"I like that we can test cloud applications."

"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."

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

Cons

"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."

"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."

"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."

"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."

"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."

"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."

More Acunetix cons

"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."

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

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

"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."

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

"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."

"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 costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

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

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

"The solution is expensive."

"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."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"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."

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

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

"The price of the solution is expensive."

"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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

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 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

Spirent CyberFlood vs Ixia BreakingPoint

Compared 81% of the time

Synopsys Defensics vs Ixia BreakingPoint

Compared 19% of the time

More Ixia BreakingPoint Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

June 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

June 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

June 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Ixia BreakingPoint

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 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.