We performed a comparison between Invicti and OWASP Zap 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."Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"The API is exceptional."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The interface is easy to use."
"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."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and HCL AppScan. See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap 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.
