We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Sonatype Repository Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"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."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"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."
"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."
"The product's network and intrusion protection features are valuable. It also has rules and compliance features for security."
"Another thing that I like about Sonatype is that if you download something today, and five days from today it becomes vulnerable, it will notify you."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"The tool needs to improve its file systems. The product should also include zero test feature."
"What I don't like is the lack of an option to pick up the phone and call someone for support. That is something they need to improve on. They need to have a professional services package, or they need to include that option with their services."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Sonatype Repository Firewall is ranked 34th in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Sonatype Repository Firewall is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sonatype Repository Firewall writes "You will get clean code every time, and that's a great achievement". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Sonatype Repository Firewall is most compared with JFrog Xray, Cisco Secure Firewall, Black Duck, GitHub and Veracode. See our Acunetix vs. Sonatype Repository Firewall report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
