We performed a comparison between Acunetix and CAST Highlight 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."The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"The most valuable features of CAST Highlight are automation and speed."
"The most valuable features of the CAST Highlight are the interface and there are three notations that are very simple to understand and communicate with."
"CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"It offers good performance."
"The way it tells you which codebase is more ready for the cloud and which codebase is less ready is very valuable. It works seamlessly with most languages."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"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."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"The ease of configuration and customization could be improved in CAST Highlight."
"Its price should be better. It is a pretty costly tool. They have two products: CAST Highlight and CAST AIP. I would expect CAST Highlight to have the Help dashboard and the Engineering dashboard. These dashboards are currently a part of CAST AIP, and if these are made available in CAST Highlight, customers won't have to use two different products all the time."
"There's a bit of a learning curve at the outset."
"CAST Highlight could improve to allow us to comment and do a deep analysis by ourselves."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while CAST Highlight is ranked 13th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 5 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while CAST Highlight is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CAST Highlight writes "Easy to set up with optimized and automated insights". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas CAST Highlight is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Black Duck and Checkmarx One. See our Acunetix vs. CAST Highlight report.
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.