We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"Technical support has been good."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"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."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"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."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". 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". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and Synopsys API Security Testing, 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 Fortify WebInspect vs. Invicti report.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.