We performed a comparison between Acunetix and SonarQube 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."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."
"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 solution is highly stable."
"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."
"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."
"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."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"Apart from the security point of view, I like that it makes it easy to detect code smells and other issues in terms of code quality and standards."
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"The good thing with SonarQube is it covers a lot of issues, it's a very robust framework."
"Offers multi-programming language support"
"Can tweak rules and feed them into our build pipelines."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"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."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."
"The learning curve can be fairly steep at first, but then, it's not an entry-level type of application. It's not like an introduction to C programming. You should know not just C programming and how to make projects but also how to apply its findings to the bigger picture. I've had users who said that they wish it was easier to understand how to configure, but I don't know if that's doable because what it's doing is a very complicated thing. I don't know if it is possible to make a complicated thing trivially simple."
"One thing to improve would be the integration. There is a steep learning curve to get it integrated."
"I would like to see dynamic code analysis in the next version of the software."
"We found a solution with dynamic testing, and are looking to find a solution that can be used for both types of testing."
"The handling of the contents of Docker container images could be better."
"Expression of common vulnerabilities and exposures is not always current."
"In terms of what can be improved, the areas that need more attention in the solution are its architecture and development."
"In the next release, I would like to have notifications because now, it is a bit difficult. I think that's a feature which we could add there and it would benefit the users as well. For every full request, they should be able to see their bugs or vulnerability directly on the surface."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Tenable Nessus, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security. See our Acunetix vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
