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

Acunetix vs Tenable Vulnerability Management comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 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

Zafran Security
Sponsored
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
16th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (1st)
Acunetix
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (16th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th), DevSecOps (6th)
Tenable Vulnerability Manag...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (12th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 1.0%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Acunetix is 1.2%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Vulnerability Management is 4.9%, down from 8.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tenable Vulnerability Management4.9%
Zafran Security1.0%
Acunetix1.2%
Other92.9%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Israel Cavazos Landini - PeerSpot reviewer
Weekly insights and risk analysis facilitate informed security decisions
I appreciate the weekly insights Zafran provides, which include critical topics for networks and IT security, allowing us to evaluate which insights apply to our environment. The organization score feature is valuable to keep the leadership team updated on how our infrastructure fares security-wise. The applicable risk level versus base risk level feature is beneficial because prior to Zafran, we only used the base risk level, but now understand that risk depends on the asset itself. Zafran is an excellent tool.
KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy
Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.
Mani Bommisetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Streamlines vulnerability management with excellent reporting and potential AI integration
Tenable is user-friendly and excels in reporting. It allows me to easily fetch and schedule reports. The software's discovery feature aids in strengthening our security posture. The single-sensor installation process on various operating systems is smooth, unlike Rapid7, which requires different versions for separate systems. Furthermore, Tenable enables vulnerability management through potential AI integration that consolidates efforts and resolves multiple vulnerabilities simultaneously.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"We saw benefits from Zafran Security almost immediately after deploying it."
"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"Overall, we have seen about eighty-seven percent reduction of the number of vulnerabilities that require urgency to remediate, specifically the number of criticals."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"It generates automated reports."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is an easy-to-use product. I"
"It is a very, very user-friendly tool...The setup is easy"
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The integration of Tenable into our security ecosystem was very good."
"The ease of use in terms of scanning assets is valuable."
"It is quite straightforward to set up."
"It is pretty stable. I would rate it nine or maybe ten."
"A new user can easily understand the workflow, even if they are creating users for other divisions and the user is a beginner."
 

Cons

"I think the ability to have some enhanced reporting capabilities is something they can improve on, as they have good reports but we have asked for some specific reporting enhancements."
"The dashboarding and reporting functionality of Zafran Security is an area that definitely could use some improvements."
"Initially, we were somewhat concerned about the scalability of Zafran due to our large asset count and the substantial amount of information we needed to process."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."
"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"The shortcoming of the solution that needs improvement is related to its capability to do vulnerability assessments on applications."
"I'd like to see them improve their support."
"The interface could be improved; right now it's running on two interfaces simultaneously."
"I'm not satisfied with the reporting structure."
"The pricing of the solution could be more reasonable."
"We'd like to see a bit more user-friendliness."
"Tenable.io Vulnerability Management could be improved with an increased number of dashboards and MSSP integration."
"The only drawback of the solution is that it is expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"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 solution is expensive."
"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."
"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"I would rate the pricing a five out of ten. It is in the middle."
"Tenable.io is not known for being a cheap product."
"Tenable.io Vulnerability Management's pricing solution model isn't great."
"Yearly payments are to be made toward the licensing cost of the product. It is neither a cheap nor an expensive product."
"Tenable charges around $40 per device."
"The tool is reasonably priced."
"The product costs us around $137,000 annually for 4000 to 5000 assets."
"The solution is not too expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
Since we stood Zafran Security up in our private cloud, we handle the maintenance on our side. As we opted not to use...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
In terms of areas for improvement, Zafran Security is doing a really great job as a new and emerging company. Oftenti...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
My use cases for Zafran Security revolve around two primary areas. One is around vulnerability management and priorit...
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 t...
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetrati...
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOp...
What's the difference between Tenable Nessus and Tenable.io Vulnerability Management?
Tenable Nessus is a vulnerability assessment solution that is both easy to deploy and easy to manage. The design of ...
What needs improvement with Tenable.io Vulnerability Management?
I don't think I have any additional features to add for improvement, as Tenable Vulnerability Management does a prett...
 

Also Known As

No data available
AcuSensor
Tenable.io
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Global Payments AU/NZ
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Tenable Vulnerability Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.