We performed a comparison between Invicti and SonarQube 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."Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"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."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"It assists during the development with SonarLint and helps the developer to change his approach or rather improve his coding pattern or style. That's one advantage I've seen. Another advantage is that we can customize the rules."
"The good thing with SonarQube is it covers a lot of issues, it's a very robust framework."
"The most valuable features are code scanning and Quality Gates."
"The stability is good."
"This solution has the capability to analyze source code in almost all the languages in the market."
"The code coverage feature is very good."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"Using SonarQube has helped us to identify areas of technical debt to work on, resulting in better code, fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer bugs."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"The tool needs to be more compatible with C/C++ language"
"We had some issues scanning the master branch but when we upgraded to version 7.9 we noticed it does scan the master branch but we had to do a workaround for it to happen. This process could be improved in a future release."
"We had some issues where the Quality Gate check sometimes gets stuck and it is unclear."
"I find it is light on the security side."
"Code security scanning could be improved."
"The product provides false reports sometimes."
"This solution finds issues that are similar to what is found by Checkmarx, and it would be nice if the overlap could be eliminated."
"There are sometimes security breaches in our code, which aren't be caught by SonarQube. In the security area, SonarCube has to improve. It needs to better compete with other products."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security. See our Invicti vs. SonarQube 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.
