We performed a comparison between Invicti and Rapid7 AppSpider 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."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."
"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."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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 is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"What I like most about AppSpider is that it's easy to use and its automated scan gives me all the details I need to know when it comes to vulnerabilities and their solutions."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"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 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."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The product needs to be able to scale for large companies, like ours. We have millions of IP addresses that need to be scanned, and the scalability is not great."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"The dashboard and interface are crucial and they need some improvement."
"One of the challenges I have with AppSpider is that it gives you a lot of false positives, especially when compared to other solutions."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. 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 Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and SonarQube, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning. See our Invicti vs. Rapid7 AppSpider 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.
