"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail."
"The reporting being highly accurate is pretty cool. I use another product and I was always looking for answers as to what line, which part of the code, was wrong, and what to do about it. Veracode seems to have a solid database to look things up and a website to look things up."
"In terms of secure development, the SAST scan is very useful because we are able to identify security flaws in the code base itself, for the application."
"The solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is perfectly fine. It delivers, at least for the reports that we have been checking on Java and JavaScript. It has reported things that were helpful."
"You can easily integrate it with Azure DevOps. This is an added value because we work with Azure DevOps. Veracode is natively supported and we don't have to work with APIs."
"The policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is pretty comprehensive, especially around PCI. If you do the static analysis, the dynamic analysis, and then a manual penetration test, it aggregates all of these results into one report. And then they create a PCI-specific report around it which helps to illustrate how the application adheres to different standards."
"There is a single area on the dashboard where you can get a full view of all of the tests and the results from everything. There is a nice, very simple graphic that shows you the types of vulnerabilities that were found, their severity, the scoring, and in what part of the code they were found. All the details are together in one place."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix 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."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"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."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"You can scan any number of applications and it updates its database."
"I have found the best features to be the performance and there are a lot of additional plugins available."
"The solution has a pretty simple setup."
"The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"The feature that we have found most valuable is that it comes with pre-set configurations. They have a set of predefined options where you can pick one and start scanning. We also have the option of creating our own configurations, like how often do the applications need to be scanned."
"The reporting part is the most valuable. It also has very good features. We use almost all of the features for different kinds of customers and needs."
"With the Extender Tab, if you know how to code then you can create a plugin and add it to Burp."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"The feature that allows me to read which mitigation answer was submitted, and to approve it, requires me to use do so in different screens. That makes it a little bit more complicated because I have to read and then I have to go back and make sure it falls under the same number ID number. That part is a little bit complicated from my perspective, because that's what I use the most."
"Sometimes, I get feedback from a developer saying, "They are scanning a Python code, but getting feedback around Java code." While the remediation and guidelines are there, improvement is still required, e.g., you won't get the exact guidelines, but you can get some sort of a high-level insights."
"The product has issues with scanning."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"Veracode has plenty of data. The problem is the information on the dashboards of Veracode, as the user interface is not great. It's not immediately usable. Most of the time, the best way to use it is to just create issues and put them in JIRA... But if I were a startup, and only had products with a good user interface, I wouldn't use Veracode because the UI is very dated."
"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 vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"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."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"I am from Brazil. The currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep. It is almost six to one. It would be good if it can be sold in the local currency, and its price is cheaper for us."
"A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"We wish that the Spider feature would appear in the same shape that it does in previous versions."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
"The price could be better. The rest is fine."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Acunetix is ranked 12th in Application Security with 8 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 6th in Application Security with 18 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.4, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "We are getting notably fewer false positives than previously, but reporting output needs to be simplified". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "Best for manual penetration testing, a great user interface, and offers good scanning capabilities". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Invicti, Fortify WebInspect, SonarQube and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Invicti. See our Acunetix vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report.
See our list of best Application Security vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security 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.
