We performed a comparison between Acunetix 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."The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"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."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"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 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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
Acunetix is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". 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". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and SonarQube, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect and HCL AppScan. See our Acunetix vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
