We performed a comparison between Invicti and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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."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."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"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."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The solution has a pretty simple setup."
"It is useful for scanning and tracing activities."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."
"The most valuable feature is Burp Collaborator."
"The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"The solution is quite helpful for session management and configuration."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could 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."
"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."
"There needs to be better documentation provided. Currently, we need to buy books, or we need to review online some use cases from other professionals who have been using the solution to find out their experience. It is not easy to find out how to properly do a security assessment."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"The Iran market does not have after-sales support. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional needs to provide after-sales support."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 9th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6. 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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Veracode. See our Invicti vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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.