We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One 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."It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"It is a stable product."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"It has all the features we need."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"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."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"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."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"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."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". 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". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Synopsys Defensics. See our Checkmarx One 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.