We performed a comparison between Fortify Application Defender 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."I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"Reporting should be improved. The reporting options should be made better for end-users. Currently, it is possible, but it's not the best. Being able to choose what I want to see in my reports rather than being given prefixed information would make my life easier. I had to depend on the API for getting the content that I wanted. If they could fix the reporting feature to make it more comprehensive and user-friendly, it would help a lot of end-users. Everything else was good about this product."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"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."
Fortify Application Defender is ranked 30th in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines ". 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". Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Checkmarx One, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, Coverity, SonarQube and Qualys Web Application Scanning, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect. See our Fortify Application Defender vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.