We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Assess 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 most valuable feature is the continuous monitoring aspect: the fact that we don't have to wait for scans to complete for the tool to identify vulnerabilities. They're automatically identified through developers' business-as-usual processes."
"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."
"It is a stable solution...Contrast Security Assess is one of the first players in this market, so they have experience and customers, especially abroad. Overall, it's a good product."
"The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of."
"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."
"In our most critical applications, we have a deep dive in the code evaluation, which was something we usually did with periodic vulnerability assessments, code reviews, etc. Now, we have real time access to it. It's something that has greatly enhanced our code's quality. We have actually embedded a KPI in regards to the improvement of our code shell. For example, Contrast provides a baseline where libraries and the usability of the code are evaluated, and they produce a score. We always aim to improve that score. On a quarterly basis, we have added this to our KPIs."
"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."
"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away. In our internal comparisons among different tools, Contrast consistently finds more impactful vulnerabilities, and also identifies vulnerabilities that are nearly guaranteed to be there, meaning that the chance of false positives is very low."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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 setup of the solution is different for each application. That's the one thing that has been a challenge for us. The deployment itself is simple, but it's tough to automate because each application is different, so each installation process for Contrast is different."
"To instrument an agent, it has to be running on a type of application technology that the agent recognizes and understands. It's excellent when it works. If we're using an application that is using an unsupported technology, then we can't instrument it at all. We do use PHP and Contrast presently doesn't support that, although it's on their roadmap. My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."
"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."
"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."
"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."
"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."
"The product's retesting part needs improvement. The tool also needs improvement in the suggestions provided for fixing vulnerabilities. It relies more on documentation rather than on quick fixes."
"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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 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."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
Contrast Security Assess is ranked 31st in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Contrast Security Assess is rated 8.8, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Contrast Security Assess writes "We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications". 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". Contrast Security Assess is most compared with Veracode, Seeker, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan and Checkmarx One, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect. See our Contrast Security Assess 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.
