Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the DevSecOps category. Invicti is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 5.5% mindshare in DSO, compared to OpenText’s 6.6% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 36 Acunetix reviews

11,992 Views
1,559 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

7,208 Views
1,802 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Acunetix

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Acunetix and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing compete in the application security testing category. Both have unique strengths, with Acunetix being valued for its flexibility and integrations, and OpenText offering in-depth vulnerability management.

Features: Acunetix offers comprehensive upload and scheduling capabilities, fast scanning, and detailed reporting. It supports both cloud and on-premises environments with strong CI/CD tool integration. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing provides interactive scanning, detailed vulnerability insights, and wide-reaching scan coverages, with dynamic crawling and scanning suited for enterprise needs.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix faces challenges with false positives, API scanning, and its cost-prohibitive licensing model. It could improve cloud integration and reduce configuration complexity. OpenText requires enhancements in user experience, automation, and better integration with modern cloud configurations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix supports diverse deployment modes, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, with reasonable customer support but potential delays in response. OpenText focuses on on-premises use and offers responsive technical support, although it may have a less flexible deployment process affecting time-sensitive projects.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix users report pricing concerns due to frequent increases and a complex licensing model. Nevertheless, they acknowledge ROI through time savings and security improvements. OpenText, while expensive, justifies its cost with detailed security insights, though pricing transparency is a concern. Both show ROI via reduced vulnerabilities and improved security, with Acunetix possibly being more beneficial for smaller organizations.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 913,806 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 DevSecOps

8th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th), Vulnerability Management (30th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in DevSecOps

11th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 5.5%, down from 8.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 6.6%, up from 6.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Acunetix	5.5%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	6.6%
Other	87.9%

DevSecOps

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar

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.

Read full review

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

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

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"It has been able to find some vulnerabilities, and we've been able to remediate our websites and vulnerabilities, thanks to Acunetix."

"We are happy, we're not unhappy with Acunetix, but we are very impressed by some of the things that it has been doing."

"The solution is highly stable."

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

"The usability and overall scan results are good."

More Acunetix pros

"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."

"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"In terms of additional features, we are currently missing some tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."

"Tool is quite expensive though compared to other tools."

"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 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."

"I rate its stability six out of ten."

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

"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."

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."

More Acunetix cons

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."

"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."

"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."

"My advice to others using Fortify WebInspect is not to use it, there are better solutions in the market."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

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

"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."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"The price is okay."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"This solution is very expensive."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which DevSecOps solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

12%

Government

11%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	19

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?

Everything is perfect and good, including the pricing and all related aspects.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 4% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 34% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

September 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

September 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

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?

Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed reports assist in security analysis and compliance audits.
User-Friendly Interface: Simple navigation enhances user experience.
Scheduled Scans: Automation of scans allows for continuous monitoring.
Fast Detection: Quickly identifies vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting.
Integration Capabilities: Scalable solutions with compatibility across applications.
Crawling & Login Sequence: Improves depth in security analysis.

What benefits should businesses look for in reviews?

Low False Positive Rate: Accurate vulnerability detection saves time in analysis.
Time Efficiency: Automated scans reduce manual workload, improving team productivity.
Scalability: Integration features help accommodate growth and complexity.
Compliance Support: Centralized dashboard supports regulatory compliance checks.

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.

Invicti

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

August 2026

Free Report: Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best DevSecOps vendors.

We monitor all DevSecOps 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.