We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase."
"This is a stable solution."
"The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"It's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan"
"AppScan is stable."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"The solution's scalability can be a matter of concern because one license runs on one machine only."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"It's a little bit basic when you talk about the Web Services. If AppScan improved its maturity on Web Services testing, that would be good."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"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."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and Mend.io, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect. See our HCL AppScan vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
