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."It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"Technical support has been good."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"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."
"The solution is easy to use."
"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."
"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."
"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 like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"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."
"The initial setup was complex."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should 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."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"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."
"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."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
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.