My Review Of The 5 Best Penetration Testing Tools

As a technical writer focused on cybersecurity tools, I have spent the past year gaining a deeper understanding of how security experts identify vulnerabilities, assess potential threats, and prevent breaches in complex systems. My curiosity led me to explore the best penetration testing tools. These tools allow cybersecurity professionals to simulate real-world attacks, assess vulnerabilities in networks, applications, and other critical systems, and ultimately identify weaknesses before they can be exploited. By providing actionable insights, these tools help security experts patch vulnerabilities, fortify defenses, and stay one step ahead of potential threats.

By blending my personal testing experience with valuable feedback from G2 users, I’ve compiled a list of the 5 best penetration testing tools to help cybersecurity professionals find the best fit for their complex needs.

My top penetration testing tool recommendations for 2025

Penetration testing tools are essential for cybersecurity professionals to evaluate the security of systems and networks. These tools help simulate attacks to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by malicious actors. They allow testers to scan for weaknesses in various areas, including network configurations, web applications, and system software.

Through these tools, I can assess everything from password strength to potential backdoor access, ensuring systems are secure and resilient. They provide detailed reports and actionable insights that help organizations strengthen their defenses and reduce risk.

What makes penetration testing tools worth the investment: My opinion

The list below contains genuine user reviews from our best penetration testing tools category page. To qualify for inclusion in the category, a product must:

• Simulate cyberattacks on computer systems or applications
• Gather intelligence on potential known vulnerabilities
• Analyze exploits and report on test outcomes

This data has been pulled from G2 in 2025. Some reviews have been edited for clarity.

1. vPenTest

One of the most significant technical advantages of vPenTest is its ability to set up automated network penetration tests. With the test scheduling functionality, I could set up tests to run at specific times, which ensures that teams are always ahead of potential risks. It saves a lot of time and reduces the chances of missing vulnerabilities that might otherwise go undetected using traditional manual testing methods.

Additionally, vPenTest offers flexibility in customizing penetration tests. I could set up focus tests on specific areas, devices, or systems. This ability can make the tool adaptable to different environments and security needs. Testing is targeted this way and helps uncover vulnerabilities that are most relevant to an organization’s infrastructure.

The user interface is another highlight. Setting up tests, managing resources, and accessing results was easy for me, even as a beginner. The platform is designed to simplify managing complex security assessments without getting bogged down by unnecessary features. 

vPenTest also integrates well with other tools, making it a versatile addition to an existing security infrastructure. During testing, I was able to seamlessly integrate it with other monitoring and security solutions which allowed me to utilize the full power of multiple systems, providing a more comprehensive view of an organization's security posture.

It has limited scope in cloud and web application testing. I found that it struggles to adequately scan and identify vulnerabilities in cloud environments or web-based applications, which are becoming increasingly essential for modern businesses. This limitation could pose a serious issue for businesses heavily reliant on cloud infrastructure.

The reporting generated by vPenTest could be significantly improved. As I used the tool for multiple tests, I realized that reports often lacked the level of detail needed to fully understand the risks and vulnerabilities identified. They did not always provide enough technical depth for a comprehensive risk analysis, which made it difficult to immediately devise targeted remediation strategies or accurately set up a disaster recovery plan.

I also faced a delay in receiving results after the completion of assessments. Even when conducting simpler, less critical tests, I found that the reports were unavailable immediately. This delay is problematic, as in some cases, cybersecurity teams would need to act on findings immediately to mitigate risks. 

Another challenge I faced during my use of vPenTest was the reliability of scheduled tests. On a few occasions, I scheduled tests, but they failed to run at the designated times. This caused a delay in the testing process and required me to reschedule the tests for the same day to ensure they ran as intended. I was only testing the tool, so there were no repercussions, but this issue with scheduling reliability could hinder organizations that depend on regular, automated testing to maintain security compliance.

What I dislike about vPenTest:

• The reporting generated by vPenTest lacked sufficient technical detail, making it challenging to understand the risks thoroughly. This made it harder to devise immediate and accurate remediation strategies for identified vulnerabilities.
• I experienced delays in receiving reports after tests were completed, which could be an issue in real-time threat mitigation. These delays hindered my ability to act quickly and efficiently on findings, which could be detrimental in fast-paced environments.

What G2 users dislike about vPenTest:

"Results can take a while to appear, and the vendor advises that final reports may take several days to assemble. This makes it challenging to set clear expectations with customers regarding the test duration."

- vPenTest Review, Jerry K.

2. Pentera

One of Pentera's standout features is its ability to simulate real-world attacks. I tested my deployed controls against actual attack scenarios, which allowed me to gauge their effectiveness in real time. The tool helps me verify if the controls I’ve set up are configured correctly and if they’re performing as expected. This feature provided critical insights into the gaps in my security posture, making it easier to make adjustments where needed.

Additionally, Pentera allows me to delegate cybersecurity tasks effectively. The platform offers a structured way to manage and assign tasks, which simplifies collaboration across different areas of my security team. This feature was particularly useful in ensuring that critical tasks were handled promptly without overloading any single individual.

Another great advantage is that Pentera provides a detailed attack path for every achievement/exploit. The tool outlines each step an attacker might take, including references to security standards and remediation steps. This level of detail was invaluable in understanding the vulnerabilities and misconfigurations within an environment.

However, there are some areas where Pentera could improve. The reporting and dashboard functionalities, in particular, need some attention. While the tool works well for smaller, more focused tests, it can struggle with enterprise-scale reporting. I found it challenging to aggregate and interpret data across large environments or multiple applications, which can slow down decision-making.

Another limitation I encountered was the inability to run more tests simultaneously. While the tool does allow for testing different attack vectors, it would be much more efficient if it supported running multiple tests at once without causing significant performance issues. In my case, running several tests concurrently would have helped me evaluate the tool's security posture much faster. Similarly, large organizations would require this feature when working under tight deadlines.

I also noted a lack of a robust role-based access control (RBAC) system. Without granular control over user permissions, it’s difficult to delegate tasks and manage access appropriately. In a security environment where multiple users need different access levels to sensitive data, the absence of RBAC means that all users have equal access, which can create risks.

Lastly, Pentera didn’t seem to add new vulnerabilities on a monthly basis, which was a bit of a downside. As the cybersecurity landscape constantly evolves, I expected the tool to be more agile in updating its vulnerability database and attack methodologies. Without frequent updates, I used older test scenarios, which might not reflect the latest threats and attack methods.

What I dislike about Pentera:

• I found the reporting and dashboard features lacking, especially when handling enterprise-scale environments. Aggregating data across large networks or multiple applications proved challenging, slowing the decision-making process.
• The tool’s inability to run multiple tests simultaneously was a significant limitation. Running several tests at once would have improved efficiency and allowed me to evaluate the security posture much faster, especially in high-pressure situations.

What G2 users dislike about Pentera:

"It doesn’t yet perform all black-box testing phases, as it is designed to be safe and avoids techniques that could cause real impact, like buffer overflow and other advanced methods a true black hat hacker might use."

- Pentera Review, Felipe E.

3. Cobalt

While testing Cobalt, the attack vectors really stood out to me. The variety of attack simulations provides a comprehensive view of potential threats and covers a broad range of possible attack scenarios, which is invaluable for understanding where vulnerabilities may lie.

In addition, the easy-to-follow checklist for setting up and completing penetration tests was an excellent feature. For a beginner like me, It not only helped streamline the process but also ensured that no step was overlooked. This step-by-step guidance made it easier to conduct thorough tests without feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of the task.

Cobalt also provides the ability to conduct both dynamic application security testing (DAST) and attack surface scanning, which I found to be an excellent combination. The attack surface scanning, in particular, provided additional resources and scans that helped me gather a more complete picture of the security posture. This dual approach allowed for a deeper understanding of both external vulnerabilities and how an application behaves under dynamic testing conditions.

What I found particularly helpful was that not only do security teams get tickets, but Cobalt also provides suggested fixes for each issue discovered. This is an invaluable addition to the testing process, as it helps guide remediation efforts and ensures that the security team doesn't waste time guessing at solutions.

Another feature I appreciated is the report generation from the dashboard. The centralized reporting system made it easy to review results and efficient for tracking progress and outcomes.

However, I encountered some challenges during my testing. For one, Cobalt struggles when dealing with more complicated applications or those with a lot of features. In these cases, I noticed that some in-depth coverage was missed. There were occasions when my internal pen-testing team identified vulnerabilities that the Cobalt team had overlooked. 

The portal itself is quite user-friendly, but I found that the experience could be further improved with more detailed tutorials or documentation. While it was easy to navigate the basic features, the more advanced capabilities would have benefitted from clearer instructions. 

Lastly, I noticed some variability in the quality and expertise of security testing engineers. On one hand, I received testing reports with fantastic detail and accurate findings, but on the other hand, there were instances where the results lacked depth and didn’t fully reflect the understanding of the underlying vulnerabilities. This inconsistency in quality was somewhat frustrating, especially when the reports missed critical details that an experienced pentester would have caught.

What I dislike about Cobalt:

• Cobalt struggles with complicated applications or those with extensive features, and during testing, I found that it sometimes missed in-depth coverage. My internal team identified vulnerabilities that Cobalt overlooked.
• While the portal itself is user-friendly, I felt that more detailed tutorials or documentation would enhance the experience, especially for advanced capabilities. 

What G2 users dislike about Cobalt:

"The testers relied mostly on automated tools without thoroughly reviewing the results or tailoring the test to our brief. The testing was very surface-level and barely explored the application's business logic."

- Cobalt Review, Verified User in Computer Software

4. Bugcrowd

Bugcrowd is a platform I found incredibly valuable for its collaborative approach to cybersecurity. The tool effectively connects a diverse community of ethical hackers and security professionals, allowing them to tackle real-world security challenges. 

Bugcrowd’s AI-powered hacker activation stood out during my testing. This advanced matching system ensured that the right talent was engaged for my specific needs, drawing from a vast pool of ethical hackers. The AI-driven approach significantly improved the quality of my security assessments while also speeding up the testing process, which was a critical factor for me.

The attack validation and prioritization feature proved essential in my testing. It helped me quickly filter out irrelevant vulnerabilities and focus on the ones that mattered most. This ability not only streamlines the testing process but also makes it easier for teams to direct resources toward the most pressing issues.

One aspect I particularly appreciated was the platform’s user-friendly interface. It made the entire process—from scoping to remediation—efficient and simple. The intuitive design helped me stay organized and focused without getting bogged down in unnecessary administrative work. 

However, there were a few challenges during my testing. One of the biggest issues I encountered was with the moderator assigned to a project. The quality of the program seemed to vary depending on the moderator, and this had a direct impact on the results. Some projects yielded numerous actionable findings, while others produced far fewer, which led to inconsistencies in the outcomes.

Another challenge I faced was handing over sensitive information to ethical hackers whom I didn’t personally know or trust. While Bugcrowd provides a secure platform, I still found it difficult to share highly sensitive data with individuals whose backgrounds I wasn’t familiar with. This required me to take extra precautions when assigning tasks and sharing details, which added a layer of complexity to the process and some anxiety. 

Setting up many accounts for testing also proved to be a bit cumbersome. While the platform can handle multiple tests simultaneously, managing various accounts and configurations could have been more streamlined. During large-scale security assessments, this became especially time-consuming, making it harder to maintain focus on critical vulnerabilities.

Finally, I found that the user interface for reviewing submissions could use some improvements. While functional, it felt somewhat outdated, and navigating through many submissions was not as intuitive as I would have liked. The process itself could become overwhelming, especially when managing numerous reports, and a more refined system for organizing and categorizing submissions would have made the review process more efficient.

What I dislike about Bugcrowd:

• The program's effectiveness heavily depended on the assigned moderator, leading to inconsistent testing results. Some projects provided valuable insights, while others lacked depth, making it difficult to maintain uniform security coverage.
• Sharing sensitive data with ethical hackers, which I didn’t personally know, introduced an element of uncertainty despite Bug Crowd’s security measures. This forced me to implement additional safeguards, which added complexity to the process and raised concerns about data confidentiality.

What G2 users dislike about Bugcrowd:

"The integrations, like with Jira, are a bit difficult to set up and could really benefit from an update to align with more modern tools in Jira. Additionally, the initial engagement with our program was slow and required much convincing from product owners to transition to a public program, especially since there wasn’t much proof of engagement beforehand."

- Bugcrowd Review, Jack E.

5. Astra Pentest

One of the first things that stood out to me while testing Astra Pentest was the automated vulnerability scanner. With over 3000+ tests, the tool covers many security issues, giving me confidence that it wasn’t missing any significant vulnerabilities.

The sheer number of tests made it clear that Astra Pentest is designed to provide a thorough evaluation, which I appreciated. It scanned for everything from Denial of service (DoS) attacks to cryptojacking attacks among other common risks.

I also found the Astra dashboard to be an excellent feature. It offered a smooth and intuitive experience that made it easy to track the progress of my tests. I could view the results, and the dashboard broke down the vulnerabilities by category, which can help security teams prioritize which issues needed immediate attention. 

Another feature I liked was the progressive web app (PWA) that allowed me to access the Astra Pentest dashboard on my mobile device. This was particularly useful when I was away from my desk but still needed to check the status of ongoing tests or review the results. 

During my testing, I also appreciated that the tool adheres to open web application security standards and SANS guidelines. This gave me confidence that the tests were conducted according to industry best practices, making the results more reliable and trustworthy.

One issue I faced was with the email reporting system. Each time an auto test was completed, I received an email notification. The constant stream of notifications felt overwhelming at times, and I would have preferred to have more control over the frequency of reports. 

Another downside I experienced was the presence of false positives. While false positives are common with automated vulnerability scanning tools, I felt that Astra Pentest could reduce them by offering more options to disable tests for technologies that aren’t being used. This would allow the tool to focus more on relevant vulnerabilities and reduce unnecessary noise in the results. 

I also found that the tool lacked some important advanced customization options. While the scans themselves were thorough, I didn’t have much control over the parameters of the tests. As someone who has worked with other security tools before, I found this limitation a bit frustrating. Advanced users, particularly those from experienced security teams, would likely appreciate the ability to fine-tune the scan settings to suit their specific needs. 

Finally, I was disappointed to discover that Astra Pentest lacked API access. This was a significant drawback, especially since API integration is essential for automating certain parts of the security testing process or for integrating the tool with other systems. Without API access, it felt like the tool was somewhat limited in terms of scalability and flexibility for more advanced use cases.

What I dislike about Astra Pentest:

• The constant stream of email notifications after each auto test became overwhelming, making it difficult to manage alerts effectively. I would have preferred more customization options to control the frequency and type of reports I received.
• The lack of API access significantly limited the tool’s ability to integrate with other security systems and automate processes. This restriction made it harder to scale testing efforts and felt like a missed opportunity for more advanced use cases.

What G2 users dislike about Astra Pentest:

"The web application faces major performance issues, including extreme slowness and instability. At times, it doesn't accurately show the current audit status, so we have to rely on email updates for this information. This area definitely has room for improvement."

- Astra Pentest Review, Alex V.

Best penetration testing tools: frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Q. How do penetration testing tools work?

Penetration testing tools automate tasks such as scanning for vulnerabilities, exploiting identified weaknesses, and gaining unauthorized access to systems or networks. These tools provide detailed reports, which security teams use to fix vulnerabilities.

Q. Do I need technical skills to use penetration testing tools?

Yes, using penetration testing tools requires a certain level of technical knowledge, especially in networking, security protocols, and system administration. Some tools may have user-friendly interfaces, while others require deep technical expertise.

Q. How do I choose the right penetration testing tool?

Choosing the right tool depends on your specific needs, such as the type of system being tested, the test's scope, and the types of vulnerabilities you're looking for. It's important to select a tool that aligns with the environment you're testing (e.g., networks, web applications).

Q. What is the difference between penetration testing and vulnerability scanning?

Penetration testing involves actively exploiting vulnerabilities to determine the extent of potential damage, while vulnerability scanning primarily focuses on detecting weaknesses without attempting to exploit them.

Q. Can penetration testing tools be used for red teaming?

Yes, penetration testing tools are often used in red teaming exercises, where security professionals simulate advanced attacks to evaluate an organization’s security posture, response capabilities, and overall defenses.

Q. Which is the best free penetration tool? 

The best free penetration testing tool is vPenTest by Vonahi Security. Other tools, such as Intruder and Acunetix by Invicti, offer free trials with capabilities for vulnerability scanning and penetration testing. Explore other free penetration testing tools. 

We’ll patch things up after the test!

I've experienced firsthand how, without penetration testing tools, much of the analysis becomes manual, leading to missed vulnerabilities. Threat detection is reactive rather than proactive. The absence of real-time reporting further complicates matters. These challenges have underscored the fact that effective security tools are not simply a convenience—they are essential for robust security.

Each penetration testing tool I’ve explored offers distinct strengths, whether it's vulnerability scanning, threat detection, or real-time reporting. From automated scanners that save time and reduce errors to advanced detection systems that offer deep, actionable insights, these tools equip cybersecurity professionals with the capabilities needed to stay ahead of ever-evolving threats.

By carefully selecting the right tools for the job, professionals can ensure a proactive, comprehensive defense strategy. 

Explore runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools to detect and mitigate threats in real time. Start protecting your apps today!