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

Acunetix vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Application Security Tools
17th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
14th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (23rd), DevSecOps (6th)
Spirent CyberFlood
Ranking in Application Security Tools
35th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
32nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.8%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent CyberFlood is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

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…
Jos Badimo - PeerSpot reviewer
Test assurance improves compliance and products with good performance
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one screen most of the time. Even if the system navigates me to another screen, it should effectively return me to the main screen.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"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."
"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"The solution is highly stable."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
 

Cons

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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 vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"The cost can be reduced as management has noted it to be on the higher side."
"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."
"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"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."
"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."
"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."
"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."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools 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
16%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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 time depends on the application's code.
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.
What needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one...
What is your primary use case for Spirent CyberFlood?
I have been using the solution for a year now. The customers I work with are focused on both custom test assurance and test automation. The solution is utilized in the financial services sector and...
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Digicel
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Spirent CyberFlood and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.