We performed a comparison between Invicti and Kiuwan 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 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."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"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 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."
"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The custom attack preparation screen might 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."
"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 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."
"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."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. 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 Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Invicti vs. Kiuwan 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.
