We performed a comparison between Invicti and Veracode 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."I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"What's important for me, from Veracode, is the all-in-one metrics location. I can see where everything is across the entire portfolio of applications I have in this program, and I can report out on it."
"To me, the principal feature is the CLI (command-line interface) because I put together a lot of implementations using it. Another important aspect is the low false-positive rate because the solution is very configurable. It is as low as 1 percent and that is a huge difference compared to competitors."
"The developers' awareness of the security weaknesses within their code has improved. They aren't just mitigating these issues, they are realizing these are, in fact, issues that have to be dealt with."
"I like Veracode's ease of integration with various cloud platforms and tools."
"The source composition analysis had very good reporting."
"The most valuable feature is the SAST capability and its integration into the Veracode pipelines."
"The capability to identify vulnerable code is the most valuable feature of Veracode."
"Scanning of .war and .jar is key for us."
"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"One concern is that scans take a long time to run. We scan at the end of the day because we know it will take a lot of time. We leave it to run and the report will be generated by the next day when we arrive. The scanning time could be reduced."
"The scanning process for records could be faster and there is room for improvement in Veracode's performance."
"Veracode can be slow at times and has room for improvement, which may cause delays in our products and prolonged static scans."
"Some important languages are not supported."
"When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications."
"The scanning could be a little faster. The process around three or four minutes, but it would help if it could be further reduced."
"They cover a lot of languages already and it doesn't make sense for them to cover legacy languages but I know there is a need for covering legacy languages."
"Scanning progress is highly dependent on the speed of the Internet."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. 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 Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Invicti vs. Veracode 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.
