We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand 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 has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The user interface is good."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"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 solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"I am impressed with Invictus’ proof-based scanning. The solution has reduced the incidence of false positive vulnerabilities. It has helped us reduce our time and focus on vulnerabilities."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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 scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"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 higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 8th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". 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 on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Checkmarx One. See our Fortify on Demand 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.