We performed a comparison between Invicti and SonarQube 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."Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"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."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"This solution is simple to use and can be quickly deployed."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"Engineers have also learned from the results and have improved themselves as engineers. This will help them with their careers."
"I like the by-default policies that are they, as they seem to cover most of what I need."
"It is a very good tool for analysis despite its limitations."
"The solution is stable."
"Can tweak rules and feed them into our build pipelines."
"SonarQube is a fantastic tool which saves us precious time."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"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."
"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 support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production."
"During the setup process, we only had one issue related to the number of available files. To perform the analysis, you have quite a lot of available file handles, so we had to increase that limit."
"In terms of what can be improved, the areas that need more attention in the solution are its architecture and development."
"There needs to be a shareable reporting piece or something we can click and generate easily."
"We did have some trouble with the LDAP integration for the console."
"SonarQube could improve by adding automatic creation of tasks after scanning and more support for the Czech language."
"The security in SonarQube could be better."
"We called support and complained but have not received any information as we use the free version. We had to fix it on our own and could not escalate it to the tool's developer."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Invicti vs. SonarQube 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.
