Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Download the complete report

Helped 879,259 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

6th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th), Vulnerability Management (25th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in DevSecOps

8th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the DevSecOps category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 8.0%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 5.7%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

DevSecOps Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Acunetix	8.0%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	5.7%
Other	86.3%

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 Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and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

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

"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."

"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."

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

"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."

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

"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."

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

More Acunetix pros

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

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

"The tool provides comprehensive vulnerability assessments which help ensure our deliverables are as free from vulnerabilities as possible. It has also streamlined our web application vulnerability assessments, assisting us in delivering secure applications to our clients."

"The solution is easy to use."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

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

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."

"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."

"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 is room for improvement in the pricing."

"I believe Acunetix can improve customer support, as the dedicated support staff are often unfamiliar with problems and troubleshooting, leading to communication gaps that delay issue resolution."

"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."

"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."

"Acunetix may need to reconsider the cost or price compared to other vendors."

More Acunetix cons

"We have had a problem with authentification."

"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."

"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."

"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

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

"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is exceptionally high."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

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

"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."

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

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"This solution is very expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

University

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	16

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

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.

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

My main use case for Acunetix is using it as a web security and web vulnerability scanner. I use Acunetix in my day-to-day work to perform web vulnerability assessments for our web servers.

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

I would rate Acunetix a 10 out of 10. I gave Acunetix a 10 because of its accuracy. My advice to others looking into using Acunetix is that it will be one of the best web vulnerability scanners, pr...

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 ...

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

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...

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 15% of the time

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

Snyk vs Acunetix

Compared 2% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 16% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Acunetix

Download Acunetix product report

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

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

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

Acunetix vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing