Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition
Acunetix vs Burp Suite
One of fourteen models named Acunetix first on the direct prompt; zero named Burp Suite. Acunetix was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Burp Suite by thirteen and Acunetix carries 39 labels and Burp Suite 45, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Burp Suite
accepted challengerNamed in three categories this edition.
First-choice share12%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate13%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels3945A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Acunetix reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Invicti was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. OWASP ZAP vs Acunetix · OWASP ZAP vs Burp Suite · Invicti vs Acunetix
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the dynamic application security testing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AcunetixFirst choices, of fourteen modelsBurp SuiteDirect10
Paraphrase51
Comparative031 against Acunetix · 1 against Burp Suite
Budget-constrained002 against Burp Suite
Scale-constrained001 against Burp Suite
Negative014 against Acunetix · 4 against Burp Suite
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Acunetix and Burp Suite were named in the same answer fifty-five times, of the 125 answers naming Acunetix and the 121 naming Burp Suite. In those answers Burp Suite took the first choice three times and Acunetix three.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Acunetix and Burp Suite stood in it.
| Model | DirectBS | ParaphraseBS | ComparativeBS | Budget-constrainedBS | Scale-constrainedBS | NegativeBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | BS | BS | BS | |
| GPT-5.4 mini | BS | BS | BS | BS | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | BS | BS | BS | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | BS | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | BS | BS | BS | |
| Mistral Small | BS | BS | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | BS | BS | | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | BS | BS | BS | |
| Kimi K2 | | BS | BS | BS | BS | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | BS | BS | BS | BS | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | BS | BS | BS | BS | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | BS | BS | BS | BS |
AcunetixBS Burp Suite first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Acunetix on the left and Burp Suite on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Acunetix and Burp Suite stood in it.
Acunetix first, Burp Suite an alternative
1 of 14 modelsBurp Suite was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: Burp Suite
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Intruder, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Invicti
Kimi K2Bright Security, StackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti
MiniMax M2.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashEscape alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk
Mistral SmallBurp Suite Enterprise Edition, Intruder alternatives: Aikido Security
DeepSeek V4 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Invicti
Llama 4 MaverickBurp Suite Enterprise Edition alternatives: Aikido Security, AppCheck, Intruder
GLM 4.7 FlashXStackHawk alternatives: OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
GPT-6 LunaInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, StackHawk
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Acunetix leads by nine points.
Acunetix9%#4 of 12Burp Suite0%#11 of 12
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Burp Suite leads at enterprise.
Burp Suite4%#5 of 14
Acunetix2%#10 of 14What the models said about Acunetix
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“excellent for complex web applications with 12,000+ vulnerability types, but has a premium price and potential for false positives” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · soft negative
“The Verdict: Use with caution. It is a popular commercial tool, but it is notorious for being "noisy."” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“Legacy versions struggle with SPAs, CAPTCHAs, and complex auth, leading to shallow coverage and noise.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“my recommendation is Acunetix if you want a strong balance of broad web scanning, automation, and mid-market fit” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For a B2B company specifically, I'd lean toward Acunetix due to its strong API security testing capabilities” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“If you want one name: Acunetix by Invicti is the safest recommendation for most mid-market B2B companies.” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Burp Suite
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“The Verdict: Avoid for automated scanning. Use only for manual penetration testing.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Burp Suite Enterprise has complex setup and configuration requirements that often need dedicated security expertise” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Extremely manual and limited automation in the free version; Pro is better but still developer/pentester-focused.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“commercial tools like Burp Suite Professional and Invicti catch more vulnerability types than open-source alternatives, with Burp Suite achieving ~29% coverage of critical vulnerabilities” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd generally recommend Burp Suite Professional if you want the best balance of capability, usability, and web-app-focused coverage” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Burp Suite Professional (PortSwigger): Best for manual testing + automated scanning hybrid. Excellent SPA support.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs Burp SuiteInvicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs Burp SuiteAcunetix vs StackHawkAcunetix vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs IntruderAcunetix vs Aikido SecurityStackHawk vs Burp SuiteBright Security vs Burp SuiteIntruder vs Burp SuiteBurp Suite vs Aikido SecurityAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DAST standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.