We performed a comparison between Invicti and Mend.io 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."Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"The results and the dashboard they provide are good."
"WhiteSource helped reduce our mean time to resolution since the adoption of the product."
"WhiteSource is unique in the scanning of open-source licenses. Additionally, the vulnerabilities aspect of the solution is a benefit. We don't use WhiteSource in the whole organization, but we use it for some projects. There we receive a sense of the vulnerabilities of the open-source components, which improves our security work. The reports are automated which is useful."
"We can take some measures to improve things, replace a library, or update a library which was too old or showed severe bugs."
"For us, the most valuable tool was open-source licensing analysis."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"The vulnerability analysis is the best aspect of the solution."
"The license management of WhiteSource was at a good level. As compared to other tools that I have used, its functionality for the licenses for the code libraries was quite good. Its UI was also fine."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"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."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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 scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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 dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
"It should support multiple SBOM formats to be able to integrate with old industry standards."
"WhiteSource needs improvement in the scanning of the containers and images with distinguishing the layers."
"The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"It would be good if it can do dynamic code analysis. It is not necessarily in that space, but it can do more because we have too many tools. Their partner relationship support is a little bit confusing. They haven't really streamlined the support process when we buy through a reseller. They should improve their process."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"I rated the solution an eight out of ten because WhiteSource hasn't built in a couple of features that we would have loved to use and they say they're on their roadmap. I'm hoping that they'll be able to build and deliver in 2022."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 13th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Mend.io is rated 8.4. 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 Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Veracode, Snyk and Checkmarx One. See our Invicti vs. Mend.io 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.