We performed a comparison between Acunetix and GitLab 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."Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"The user interface is really good so that helps with huge teams who need to collaborate."
"For us, Gitlab's most valuable feature is the integration with Cypress. We're using Cypress as an automation tool, so we're using GitLab as a tool for running in parallel."
"I find the features and version control history to be most valuable for our development workflow. These aspects provide us with a clear view of changes and help us manage requests efficiently."
"GitLab's best features are maintenance, branch integration, and development infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of GitLab is its security."
"This is a scalable solution. We had around 200 users working with it."
"It speeds up our development, it's faster, safer, and more convenient."
"It is a speedy platform compared to the others I have used. I have also enjoyed using the platform as this solution offers a good user experience."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"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."
"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"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."
"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 limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"It's more related to the supporting layer of features, such as issue management and issue tracking. We tend to always use, for example, Jira next to it. That doesn't mean that GitLab should build something similar to Jira because that will always have its place, but they could grow a bit in those kinds of supporting features. I see some, for example, covering ITSM on a DevOps team level, and that's one of the things that I and my current client would find really helpful. It's understandably not going to be their main focus and their core, and whenever you are with a company that needs a bit more advanced features on that specific topic, you're probably still going to integrate with another tool like Jira Service Management, for example. However, some basic features on things like that could be really helpful."
"I would like to see better integration with project management tools such as Jira."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly. We do most of our operations through the website interface but it could be better."
"Reporting could be improved."
"I used Spring Cloud config and to connect that to GitLab was so hard."
"The solution could be faster."
"GitLab could improve the patch repository. It does not have support for Conan patch version regions. Additionally, better support for Kubernetes deployment is needed as part of the package."
"Merge conflicts and repository maintenance could improve. If there is someone new to the system they would not know if there is a conflict."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while GitLab is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, SonarQube, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton. See our Acunetix vs. GitLab report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors, and best DevSecOps vendors.
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.