We performed a comparison between Invicti and Ixia BreakingPoint 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."One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"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 solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"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 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."
"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."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The price could be better."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 25 reviews while Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics. See our Invicti vs. Ixia BreakingPoint 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.
