We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Spirent CyberFlood 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."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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"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."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The solution is highly stable."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"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."
Acunetix is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Spirent CyberFlood 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 Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE. See our Acunetix vs. Spirent CyberFlood report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
