Barrion vs Acunetix
Barrion and Acunetix both target web applications. Barrion uses passive, read-only checks (headers, TLS, config) that are safe for production and built for continuous monitoring with step-by-step fixes. Acunetix is an active DAST scanner that crawls and tests the app to find vulnerabilities. This comparison outlines the tradeoffs.
Comparison at a glance
| Aspect | Barrion | Acunetix |
|---|---|---|
| Scan type | Passive (read-only), production-safe, no attack payloads | Active DAST, crawl and attack to find vulnerabilities |
| What it finds | Misconfigurations, TLS/headers, cookies, exposure, drift | OWASP Top 10, SQLi, XSS, and other injection and logic issues |
| Use case | Continuous monitoring, compliance, audit evidence, zero risk | Vulnerability discovery, pre-release testing, compliance scanning |
| Remediation | Step-by-step fixes per finding, PDF/CSV export | Findings with guidance, integration with trackers and pipelines |
| Production | Designed for production, no impact on availability | Typically run in staging or scheduled windows, can affect availability |
| Pricing | Free tier, paid for monitoring | Commercial, contact for pricing |
Who Barrion is best for
Teams that want always-on web app security in production, clear remediation, and audit-ready reports without running active scans. Good for engineering teams and gap coverage between pentests.
Who Acunetix is best for
Teams that want comprehensive DAST with active testing, integration into CI/CD and trackers, and are comfortable running scans in non-production or controlled environments.
Summary
Barrion and Acunetix can complement each other. Use Barrion for continuous, passive monitoring and compliance. Use Acunetix for active vulnerability discovery in staging or pipelines. Choose based on whether you need production-safe ongoing monitoring (Barrion) or deep DAST (Acunetix).
Try Barrion with a free scan, no credit card required. See your results and step-by-step fixes in under a minute.
Run free security scan →
