We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The accuracy of its scans is great."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"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."
"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 scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"The initial setup was complex."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"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 scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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 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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". 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 WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and GitLab, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Rapid7 AppSpider. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Invicti report.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.
