We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Invicti 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."The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"Usually when we deploy the application, there is a process for ethical hacking. The main benefit is that, the ethical hacking is almost clean, every time. So it's less cost, less effort, less time to production."
"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"The security and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"We use it as a security testing application."
"I like the recording feature."
"The UI was very intuitive."
"The HCL AppScan turnaround time for Burp Suite or any new feature request is pretty good, and that is why we are sticking with the HCL."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"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 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 like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"They have to improve support."
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"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."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"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."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Reporting should be improved. The reporting options should be made better for end-users. Currently, it is possible, but it's not the best. Being able to choose what I want to see in my reports rather than being given prefixed information would make my life easier. I had to depend on the API for getting the content that I wanted. If they could fix the reporting feature to make it more comprehensive and user-friendly, it would help a lot of end-users. Everything else was good about this product."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". 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". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and SonarQube. See our HCL AppScan vs. Invicti 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.