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 August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.5%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.7%, up from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 7.8%, 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

KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
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.
Sajal Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers shift-left security strategy and helps us with the latest security configurations, OWASP standards, and SAST standards
It's robustness is the main benefit to the organization. As it gets upgraded with time, it also improves the coverage – security configuration coverages and vulnerability coverages. It also updates itself with the latest known vulnerabilities that are uploaded to the NVD, OWASP, or other databases. So it gets upgraded itself with that. And so with each upgrade, it gets better and better. The solution offers the ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. It provides us with a report containing multiple remediations and mitigations for each vulnerability. For example, if it finds a cross-site scripting vulnerability, it will also include references like CWE and CVE records, instructions on how to fix it, and the specific line of code or module where the vulnerability is present. This helps us fix the issues accordingly. I'm a penetration tester and DevSecOps engineer. I evaluate the findings, mark false positives, and manually exploit vulnerabilities if they exist. If we need further clarification, we raise a ticket with the Veracode team and get consultancy from them. We are a software development team. If we find a vulnerability, I exploit it and come back with the best possible mitigation, and the dev team fixes it. If we use Veracode Fix, it might use third-party implementations or make changes we aren't aware of. We need to be very aware of what our application is using internally. It should be known to us. As per my experience, the solution's policy reporting ensures compliance with industry standards. It comes with multiple features. I get the most out of it, and it's good. The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. Like static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition, and manual penetration tests - throughout the SDLC We have a pipeline that I maintain. I use the Veracode API account and have integrated it with AWS and our Jenkins pipeline. We use Snyk for SCA and Veracode for SAST scanning. At the earliest stage of the build, the SAST scan runs along with the JS and PHP files. It provides us with reports, which are then handed over to the other tools we depend on. If I validate the report or check the Veracode dashboard and find vulnerabilities, I mark them as false positives or existing issues. We work on multiple projects, but the one I'm handling these days only uses Veracode for SAST. It's been about one and a half years since I've been working with Veracode and this project. It is quite impressive. There are some things Veracode cannot find, like code obfuscations inside the code and some insecure randoms. Sometimes, it misses those flaws. But overall, if I compare it with other tools, it is better. I will definitely recommend others to use this tool. We run the scan before each deployment. If the dev team builds a new module or something, we scan it along with all the files. If we find anything, we get it fixed. That's how it works. Veracode is quite important to the organization's shift-left security strategy because we make a scan for each deployment. Sometimes, if I think we need to perform a shift-left, I just make a scan before deployment and check for any misconfiguration or vulnerability in the code.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"It generates automated reports."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"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 API is exceptional."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"The interface is easy to use."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"There have been a lot of benefits gained from Veracode. Compared to other tools, Veracode has good flexibility with an easy way to run a scan. We get in-depth details on how to fix things and go through the process. They provide good process documents, community, and consultation for any issues that occur during the use of Veracode."
"Using an automated tool brings cost reduction and more security."
"We have such a wide variety of users for Veracode, including security champions, development leads, developers themselves, that the ease of use is really quite important, because we don't assume anything about what those people might already know, or need to know. It just makes it very useful for anyone who has to engage with it."
"What I found most valuable in Veracode Static Analysis is that it categorizes security vulnerabilities."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"The most valuable feature is the SAST capability and its integration into the Veracode pipelines."
"I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code."
"I have found the user interface extremely helpful in prioritizing issues."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"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."
"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."
"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."
"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."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"The one thing I'd like to be able to do is schedule dynamic scans. Today we're kicking those off manually, but I believe that it's something have on their roadmap."
"The solution does take a bit more time when we use it for multiple processes."
"It needs to reach the level of Checkmarx's and Fortify Software's capabilities and service levels, or may further loosen the market share."
"Veracode can improve the licensing model as it is a bit confusing."
"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."
"I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan."
"I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages."
"I am expecting some AI-related features in it. Also, if someone is using AI-generated code, Veracode should be able to detect that."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"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."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"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."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
"The tool is open source."
"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."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"The tool is open-source."
"The pricing is fair. You get a lot out of the product."
"It's very expensive, especially when you are a very small organization. If you're using Veracode at an individual level, for example, you're a developer or you run agents, the pricing might not affect you, but if you're using it at a company level to troubleshoot security issues, the pricing is not quite favorable. It may affect ROI."
"Veracode's price is reasonable."
"The pricing is fair."
"I have not examined Veracode's pricing in detail, but from an industry perspective, I see that there is a tendency toward Veracode, which suggests competitive pricing."
"Get a license at the beginning of a project. Don't wait until the end, because you want to use the product throughout the entire software development lifecycle, not just at the end. You could be surprised, and not in a positive way, with all the vulnerabilities there are in your code."
"The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning."
"The cost of Veracode is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
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?
Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetrati...
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 DevSecOp...
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: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.