We performed a comparison between Coverity and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"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 most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"The setup takes very long."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"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 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."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"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."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". 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". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect. See our Coverity vs. Invicti report.
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.
