Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition
Acunetix vs Bright Security
Four of fourteen models named Acunetix first on the direct prompt; one named Bright Security. Acunetix was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Bright Security by seven and Acunetix carries 35 labels and Bright Security 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Bright Security
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share13%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate6%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#5A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels3511A 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 twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Invicti vs Acunetix · Invicti vs Bright Security · OWASP ZAP 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 modelsBright SecurityDirect41
Paraphrase30
Comparative30
Budget-constrained001 against Acunetix
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Acunetix
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Acunetix and Bright Security stood in it.
| Model | DirectBS | ParaphraseBS | ComparativeBS | Budget-constrainedBS | Scale-constrainedBS | NegativeBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | BS | BS | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | BS | | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | BS | |||||
| Grok 4.20 | | BS | | |||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | BS | | | BS | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | BS | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | BS | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | |
AcunetixBS Bright Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Acunetix on the left and Bright Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Acunetix and Bright Security stood in it.
Both were the first choice
1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder
Acunetix first, Bright Security an alternative
3 of 14 modelsBright Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Mistral SmallAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, StackHawk
Gemini 3.5 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, Escape, Invicti
Perplexity SonarInvicti alternatives: Bright Security, Escape, StackHawk
Qwen 3.7 FlashInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Apidog, Postman, Veracode DAST
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, StackHawk
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti
Grok 4.20Invicti alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Probely, StackHawk
Llama 4 MaverickInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
GLM 4.7 FlashXOWASP ZAP, Probely alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti, StackHawk
GPT-6 LunaStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, Invicti
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 eight points.
Acunetix8%#4 of 13Bright Security0%#– of 13
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Acunetix leads by eleven points.
Acunetix13%#3 of 13Bright Security2%#5 of 13
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
The order flips: Bright Security leads at enterprise.
Bright Security2%#10 of 14
Acunetix0%#13 of 14What the models said about Acunetix
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Acunetix notes its heuristic approach and AcuSensor reduces false positives, but still recommends” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“more enterprise-friendly, but usually much more expensive” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Acunetix offers the best balance of cost, ease of use, and sufficient capabilities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“A pragmatic mid-sized B2B starting point is Acunetix for a balanced commercial DAST with low false positives” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For dev teams wanting quick, reliable scans with low false positives: Choose Invicti or Acunetix.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Bright Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“I'd recommend starting with Acunetix or Bright Security” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Use modern AI-assisted DAST tools (Bright Security, Invicti, Checkmarx DAST, Detectify) that support modern architectures” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
“Bright Security is best for mid-market companies with API-first architectures seeking early SDLC security integration.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Invicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs Bright SecurityOWASP ZAP vs AcunetixOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs StackHawkAcunetix vs EscapeAcunetix vs ProbelyAcunetix vs Veracode DASTStackHawk vs Bright SecurityBright Security vs EscapeBright Security vs ProbelyBright Security vs Veracode DASTAll 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.