Acunetix vs Synopsys API Security Testing [EOL] comparison

"Since implementing Acunetix, I have seen improvements as we have discovered real vulnerabilities and threats on our web application server, which is very critical to our organization."

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning."

"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."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"The product is really easy to use."

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"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."

"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."

"I believe Acunetix can improve customer support, as the dedicated support staff are often unfamiliar with problems and troubleshooting, leading to communication gaps that delay issue resolution."

"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."

"Improving the handling of false positives would be beneficial because it can be challenging to trust the findings flagged by Acunetix, and those findings must be manually validated."

"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

"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 is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"The solution is expensive."

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"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."