We performed a comparison between Acunetix and NowSecure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"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."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to download an application without actually putting in the APK. It gives us an option to put the APK in if we want to but we can download it from the App Store and Play Store."
"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."
"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."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"In this solution, there are two kinds of testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. There needs some improvement in testing with dynamic analysis because I have found it is not accurate"
Earn 20 points
Acunetix is ranked 11th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 26 reviews while NowSecure is ranked 32nd in Application Security Testing (AST). Acunetix is rated 7.6, while NowSecure is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NowSecure writes "Scalable and reliable, but dynamic analysis needs improvement". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas NowSecure is most compared with Veracode, Data Theorem API Secure , GitLab and Checkmarx One.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
