We performed a comparison between Invicti and OWASP Zap 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."It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"The solution is scalable."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"The API is exceptional."
"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"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 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 documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and HCL AppScan. See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap 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.