We performed a comparison between Acunetix and ImmuniWeb based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"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."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"After the assessment, you clearly know which assets require penetration testing."
"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."
"The initial setup process is user-friendly."
"I like the fully automated continuous discovery run by ImmuniWeb in the background. We do not need to rerun the same tests or the same scanning against our resources. We need to supply our IP addresses, domain names, and significant resources with special domain names and URLs, and we need to do it only once. Then we always have an up-to-date picture. I also like the integration with our single sign-on system. We do not need to maintain a separate set of usernames or user accounts. We can plug this ImmuniWeb service into our authentication technology, enabling two-factor authentication. We have secure authentication right out of the box. The other important feature I like is the executive view. You can easily switch from a technical view to an executive view and have a helicopter view of the compliance status. We can see how much effort is required and our current status."
"The most valuable features are the SLA of Zero false-positives, less time of service development, validation of unlimited patched vulnerabilities, and several others."
"ImmuniWeb is stable."
"ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. The solution is highly stable. The solution is scalable. Editing Key Points for Review "Review about ImmuniWeb" What is our primary use case? We use the solution when we face challenges and urgent attention is needed for complex cases from our clients. To address this, we collaborate with the middleware, internal, and client teams to analyze and sort through intricate logs concerning our business cybersecurity program. How has it helped my organization? The solution helped us with one of our clients in the New York area contacted us about a data breach. In response, we swiftly organized a case meeting involving our client, internal, and email customer support teams. Together, we conducted an incident response, facilitating offline assistance for proper planning and risk management processes. We delved into the details of the data breach, identified how it occurred, and collaborated to rectify the issue. The client expressed satisfaction with the resolution process. What is most valuable? ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. It also focuses on consumer satisfaction and operates in English-speaking markets, primarily required by the UAE, the United States, Canada, and Australia, among other developed countries. For how long have I used the solution? We have been using this product for the past one and half years. What do I think about the stability of the solution? The solution is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. How are customer service and support? Support is generally excellent"
"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 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 vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"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."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"ImmuniWeb sometimes shows previous scans instead of running tests."
"It would be better if they had an automated tagging feature. The tagging functionality currently requires manual tagging, and that's probably the most needed feature from my standpoint. We also do not have enough tools, enough features, or options to display different resources in the way we need. There are basic grouping and some filtering features, but we still cannot fully separate some flavors of our resources. However, we may not be aware of the latest features."
"Its technical support could be better."
"A great idea would be to support using Discovery on the internal network, allowing delivery of all the features of the current Discovery to internal network resources."
"The deployment process on the cloud is straightforward, while on-premise can be complex. Support is generally excellent, although there can be delays in ticket resolution."
"The product’s interface for the web applications could be similar to Android and iOS versions."
"A great idea would be to make a mobile application for the ImmuniWeb portal so that all information would be available on the go and from a mobile phone as well. It would be much more convenient."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while ImmuniWeb is ranked 17th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 7 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while ImmuniWeb is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ImmuniWeb writes "Easy initial setup process, but reporting feature for web scanning tools need improvement". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas ImmuniWeb is most compared with Qualys Web Application Scanning, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, OWASP Zap, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional. See our Acunetix vs. ImmuniWeb report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.