We performed a comparison between Invicti and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
"There are too many false positives."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and HCL AppScan. See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.