We performed a comparison between Snyk and Invicti based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Snyk comes out ahead of Invicti. Both products have valuable features, but the initial setup for Invicti is dependent on the environment and authentication, which makes it less user-friendly.
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"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 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 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 most valuable features of Snyk are vulnerability scanning and automation. The automation the solution brings around vulnerability scanning is useful."
"There are many valuable features. For example, the way the scanning feature works. The integration is cool because I can integrate it and I don't need to wait until the CACD, I can plug it in to our local ID, and there I can do the scanning. That is the part I like best."
"It is one of the best product out there to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly. When we talk about the third-party software vulnerability piece and potentially security issues, it takes the load off the user or developer. They even provide automitigation strategies and an auto-fix feature, which seem to have been adopted pretty well."
"The CLI feature is quite useful because it gives us a lot of flexibility in what we want to do. If you use the UI, all the information is there and you can see what Snyk is showing you, but there is nothing else that you can change. However, when you use the CLI, then you can use commands and can get the output or response back from Snyk. You can also take advantage of that output in a different way. For the same reason, we have been using the CLI for the hard gate in the pipeline: Obtain a particular CDSS score for vulnerability. Based on that information, we can then decide if we want to block or allow the build. We have more flexibility if we use the CLI."
"A main feature of Snyk is that when you go with SCA, you do get properly done security composition, also from the licensing and open-source parameters perspective. A lot of companies often use open-source libraries or frameworks in their code, which is a big security concern. Snyk deals with all the things and provides you with a proper report about whether any open-source code or framework that you are using is vulnerable. In that way, Snyk is very good as compared to other tools."
"It has improved our vulnerability rating and reduced our vulnerabilities through the tool during the time that we've had it. It's definitely made us more aware, as we have removed scoping for existing vulnerabilities and platforms since we rolled it out up until now."
"The product's most valuable features are an open-source platform, remote functionality, and good pricing."
"The dependency checks of the libraries are very valuable, but the licensing part is also very important because, with open source components, licensing can be all over the place. Our project is not an open source project, but we do use quite a lot of open source components and we want to make sure that we don't have surprises in there."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"I would like to give further ability to grouping code repositories, in such a way that you could group them by the teams that own them, then produce alerting to those teams. The way that we are seeing it right now, the alerting only goes to a couple of places. I wish we could configure the code to go to different places."
"It would be helpful if we get a recommendation while doing the scan about the necessary things we need to implement after identifying the vulnerabilities."
"They need to improve the Snyk plugins and make it easier to make your optimizations based on your own needs or features."
"The reporting mechanism of Snyk could improve. The reporting mechanism is available only on the higher level of license. Adjusting the policy of the current setup of recording this report is something that can improve. For instance, if you have a certain license, you receive a rating, and the rating of this license remains the same for any use case. No matter if you are using it internally or using it externally, you cannot make the adjustment to your use case. It will always alert as a risky license. The areas of licenses in the reporting and adjustments can be improve"
"We have to integrate with their database, which means we need to send our entire code to them to scan, and they send us the report. A company working in the financial domain usually won't like to share its code or any information outside its network with any third-party provider."
"The log export function could be easier when shipping logs to other platforms such as Splunk."
"The solution could improve the reports. They have been working on improving the reports but more work could be done."
"Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Snyk is rated 8.2. 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Rapid7 InsightAppSec, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Invicti vs. Snyk report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
