We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One 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."Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"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."
"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's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"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."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"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 higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"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."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". 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". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Synopsys Defensics. See our Checkmarx One 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.
