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 solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"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."
"Technical support has been good."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"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."
"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."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"The scanner could be better."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"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."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
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.