Acunetix vs Snyk comparison

Acunetix and Snyk are leading products in the cybersecurity domain, each catering to different security testing needs. Snyk seems to have a slight advantage due to its excellent integration capabilities with development workflows, making it highly suitable for continuous integration and deployment environments.

Features: Acunetix is notable for its Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) module, advanced scheduling capabilities, and extensive reporting functionality, making it adept for comprehensive vulnerability assessments. Its web-based system offers deep vulnerability scans with low false positives. Snyk provides seamless integration with development workflows, including notable features like dependency checks, real-time notifications, and extensive integrations with a focus on being developer-friendly, making security a part of the software development lifecycle.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could enhance its false positive management, provide improved manual testing options, and simplify the process of re-testing vulnerabilities. Users have also noted concerns with licensing changes and increased costs. Snyk could expand its language support, reduce false positives, and offer more granular notification controls. Enhancements in support documentation, API flexibility, and a combination of SAST or DAST for extended security testing are desirable.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix supports robust on-premises and hybrid cloud deployment but could improve customer support response times and effectiveness. Snyk excels in public cloud deployment flexibility and ease of integration, though its support operates on a ticket basis, which can sometimes lead to delays. Each tool shows different preferences, with Snyk favoring cloud environments heavily.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix's pricing is aligned with market standards, but recent price hikes have led some users to reassess its value. However, it still delivers positive ROI through security improvements. Snyk offers a scalable licensing model that suits developer-centric needs but remains expensive. Despite the high cost, users recognize its value due to the extensive integration capabilities and feature breadth. Defining ROI remains challenging, but users acknowledge the security enhancements both products deliver.