We performed a comparison between Coverity and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Coverity is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"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 solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"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."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The solution could use more rules."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The setup takes very long."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Invicti is ranked 15th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 25 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". 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". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Coverity vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
