We performed a comparison between Invicti and Synopsys API Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"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."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."
"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."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."
Earn 20 points
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while Synopsys API Security Testing is ranked 35th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Invicti is rated 8.2, while Synopsys API Security Testing is rated 7.0. 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 Synopsys API Security Testing writes "Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Synopsys API Security Testing is most compared with Seeker, Fortify WebInspect and OWASP Zap.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
