We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan 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."Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."
"There's extensive functionality with custom rules and a custom knowledge base."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"The UI was very intuitive."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications."
"Many silly false positives are produced."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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 scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 39 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security 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". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, Checkmarx One and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Veracode. See our HCL AppScan 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.
