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

Acunetix vs Venn Software 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
16th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th), Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)
Venn Software
Ranking in Application Security Tools
58th
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Remote Access (31st), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (33rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.8%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Venn Software is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer2110356 - PeerSpot reviewer
Great for hybrid workers, minimizes latency and delivers great performance
We haven't encountered major issues with the solution. We are really happy that we decided to purchase Venn Software, although they are quite new. The initial setup is seamless. It's not overly complex. In our experience, for the most part, the solution is reliable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. That said, the performance could be a bit better. We'd like to see a bit more done with the deployment capabilities. The solution needs to offer better local or regional support to cater to offshore users.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"It allows us to improve our security and prevent company files and data leaks."
"Since the software is launched directly from the computer, not remotely delivered, it has minimized latency and response time."
"We don't need to go to the physical office, and it only requires minimal supervision or assistance from our IT Team."
 

Cons

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."
"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"We'd like to see a bit more done with the deployment capabilities."
"Currently, Venn only uses two platforms/applications: Windows and Mac. It would be great if they could also add more platforms since some BYOD employees might be using an application other than Windows or Mac - for example, Linux."
"It would be better to have the back end more efficient."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"The solution is expensive."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
University
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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?
Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...
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 DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Venn is currently being used by 700+ organizations. The newest version of our secure workspace is selling not only to our existing customer base but to new companies like Voya, ModSquad, TTech and many others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Venn Software and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.