Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.4%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 8.5%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

AnubhavGoswami - PeerSpot reviewer
Attractive automated reports with boost user productivity and an easy setup
The primary use is mainly related to vulnerability assessment, including both public and internal IP addresses By using this tool, we have reduced the workload and increased the productivity of users. It generates automated reports. This feature is beneficial when sharing reports with clients as…
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support
There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.
AkashKhurana - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to configure, stable, and good vulnerability detection
Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from being deployed into production is crucial. Typically, if a dependency we use has security issues or concerns, Veracode suggests upgrading to a more secure version. For example, if we're using a PayPal dependency with version 1.3 and it has a security bug, Veracode suggests upgrading to version 1.4 which fixes the issue. We usually make our project compatible with version 1.4, but sometimes Veracode recommends removing the dependent code altogether and adding the updated dependency from another repository. Veracode provides suggestions for resolving security issues and we implement them in our code after resolving any conflicts. We run the Veracode scan again and if it fails, we do not deploy the code to production. This is critical as it ensures that security issues such as bugs and fixes are addressed. Veracode consistently assists us in identifying security issues in third-party dependencies, while also ensuring the maintenance of code quality. Preventing security bugs and threats in our code improves the overall code quality of our company, which is essential given the significant concerns surrounding security today. Veracode's policy reporting is helpful for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. Veracode's solution plays a major role in achieving compliance, including HIPAA compliance. Without Veracode scans, identifying security threats and third-party dependencies would be a tedious task for DevOps professionals. Veracode provides visibility into the status of our application during every phase of development, including continuous integration and continuous development CI/CD pipeline stages. This includes builds, package creation for deployment, and various enrollment stages such as develop, queue, stage, above, and production enrollment. Prior to each stage, a Veracode scan is run. This can be accessed through Jenkins or the CI/CD pipeline by clicking on the Veracode scan option, which provides a detailed report highlighting any security issues and concerns. Veracode performs statistical analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, and manual penetration tests throughout our software development life cycle. Veracode scans not only for third-party security issues but also for possible issues in our own code. This occurs in every phase of development, including the SDLC. For example, if we use an encryption algorithm with a private or public key that is easy to decode, Veracode will identify this as an error or warning in the report and suggest using multiple layers of encryption for the keys. The entire CI/CD process is part of DevOps. Therefore, the responsibility of configuring the Veracode tool usually falls on the DevOps professional. It is essential to integrate Veracode with the CI/CD pipeline within the project to ensure it is always incorporated. Whenever there is a priority or mandatory check required before deployment, Veracode should run beforehand. This integration is carried out by our DevSecOps team. Veracode's false positive rate is good, as it helps us identify possible security concerns in our code. In my opinion, it is advisable to run a Veracode scan on all codes. I have worked in the IT industry for five years, and I have observed that Veracode has been implemented in every project I have worked on. If a tool is improving our code quality and providing us with insights into potential security issues, it is always beneficial to use it. The false positive rate boosts our developers' confidence in Veracode when addressing vulnerabilities. Veracode also provides suggestions when there is a security issue with a dependency in version 1.7, prompting us to consider using version 1.8, which does not have security issues. This process involves the developers, and it leaves a positive impression on our managers and clients, demonstrating our commitment to security. We can show them that we were previously using version 1.7 but updated to version 1.8 after identifying the security issue with Veracode's help. Unfortunately, there is no centralized platform to check for network issues or problems with dependencies and versions. Veracode provides a centralized solution where we can scan our project and receive results. Veracode has helped our organization address flaws in our software and automation processes. Its positive impact has been reflected in our ROI, which increased when we started using Veracode. Without Veracode, we would be susceptible to security issues and potential hacking. However, after implementing Veracode scans, we have not encountered any such problems. It is critical for us to use Veracode because we capture sensitive data such as pharmacy information for real-time users, including patient prescriptions and refill schedules. This sensitive data could pose a significant problem if our code or software has security vulnerabilities. Fortunately, Veracode scans allow us to prevent such issues. Veracode has helped our developers save time by providing a solution that eliminates the need to manually check for dependencies or search the internet for information on which dependencies have issues. Instead, Veracode provides a detailed report that identifies the issues and recommends the appropriate version to use. Using Veracode ensures the quality of our code and also saves time for our developers. In my career of five years, Veracode has helped me resolve code issues eight times. Veracode has reduced our SecOps costs by identifying security vulnerabilities in our code. Without Veracode, if we were to go live with these issues, it could result in a breach of our encrypted data, potentially causing significant harm to our organization. This would require significant time and cost to resolve the issue and restore the data. Veracode has improved the quality of our code and reduced the risk of such incidents occurring, thereby minimizing their impact on our organization.

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."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"I like Veracode's static analysis. It was one of the core development tools when I worked with a telecommunication company where we were delivering new features for various applications and purposes each week, such as CRM, data channels, compliance, traffic data, etc."
"The solution is a specialist in SAST that you can rely on. Code scanning is fast with current, updated algorithms​."
"It's not "one policy fits all." I really like that Veracode allows me to set up specific policies that I can apply to applications."
"The dynamic scanning tool is what I like the best. Compared to other tools that I've used for dynamic scanning, it's much faster and easier to use."
"The analysis of the vulnerabilities and the results are the most valuable features."
"It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities."
"I like the sandbox, the ability to upload compiled code, and how easy it is."
"The pricing is worth it."
 

Cons

"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."
"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"The cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."
"The solution's pricing could be 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."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."
"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."
"There are too many false positives."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"The solution is unable to customize reports."
"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."
"The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted."
"Veracode can be improved in terms of software composition analysis and related vulnerabilities."
"We have encountered occasional issues with scalability."
"It can take time to find options if you don’t use the interface a lot. At some point, a bit of interface restyling may help."
"Reporting. Some of the reporting features of Veracode do need improvement. They do not have the most robust access to data. That would be a bit more beneficial to a lot of our clients as well as our actual in-house staff. I've been talking to our program management at Veracode about that, and that is actually on their radar to have that improved, I think actually this year."
"When we scan binary, when we perform binary analysis, it could go faster. That has a lot to do with the essence of scanning binary code, it takes a little bit longer. Certain aspects, depending on what type of code it is, take a little long, especially legacy code."
"It's taking too much time to do a quality scan."
"Once your report has been generated, you need to review the report with consultation team, especially if it is too detailed on the development side or regarding the language. Then, you need some professional help from their end to help you understand whatever has been identified. Scheduling consultation takes a longer time. So, if you are running multiple reports at the same time, then you need to schedule a multiple consultation times with one of their developers. There are few developers on their end who work can work with your developers, and their schedules are very tight."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"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 price is exceptionally high."
"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."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"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."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"This solution is open source and free."
"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."
"Its cost for what we needed it for was too high. It wasn't too high for other companies and it was competitively priced, but for us, it just didn't fit. We did plan to use it and increase the usage. In the end, it may have been abandoned because of the cost, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. So, even though we had planned on using it more and more, because of the cost and the business conditions of things, we didn't have the opportunity to really use it more."
"Veracode's pricing is on the higher end, but it is acceptable."
"They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works."
"It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it only for 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator."
"The licensing is fair, it is time-limited (e.g. one year) but there is a size cap for every app. If your applications are big (due third-party libraries, for example) you should discuss this beforehand and explore suitable agreements."
"It is very reasonably priced compared to what we were paying our previous vendor. For the same price, we are getting much more value and reducing our AppSec costs from 40 to 50 percent."
"The pricing for Veracode is high, making it difficult for beginners to afford."
"Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

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 t...
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I typically use Acunetix ( /products/acunetix-reviews ) to identify vulnerabilities for clients.
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I would recommend Acunetix to others. Overall, I rate this solution seven out of ten.
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available...
What do you like most about OWASP Zap?
The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan web...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?
OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. Son...
What do you like most about Veracode?
The SAST and DAST modules are great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode?
The product’s price is a bit higher compared to other solutions. However, the tool provides good vulnerability and da...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.