We performed a comparison between Invicti and Qualys Web Application Scanning 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."It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"It is a cloud-based solution, so it is easy to scale."
"The interface is user-friendly and easy to understand."
"It combines both web application vulnerability management and internal vulnerability management on one platform and dashboard. Usually, you have to purchase separate tools."
"The most valuable feature is that we are able to scan the services and put credentials like a user ID password. We can verify the vulnerability level."
"The Qualys Web Application Scanning solution offers a single comprehensive console and consolidated reporting, covering all aspects from on-prem to cloud and compliance, etcetera."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the progressive scan. It is good. It's done in 24 hours."
"Qualys' process of updating signatures is something we really appreciate, and it's way ahead of its industry peers."
"You can integrate your Burp Suite results and create an integrated report. Also, the way it shows the results - threats and exploit details - makes remediation very easy."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"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."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"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 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."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The area of false positives could be improved. There are quite a number of false positives as compared to other solutions. They could probably fine tune the algorithm to be able to reduce the number of false positives being detected."
"The GUI could be a little less complicated as it opens a lot of new windows for creating search lists, templates, reports, or for scanning purposes."
"The reporting contains too many false positives."
"The support could be faster."
"The software’s pricing could be improved."
"Sometimes the response time is low because the handshake fails, and then you have to re-login and start again."
"We receive false positives sometimes when using a solution that could be improved. However, the technical team provides us with the exact explanation why it was giving us that kind of error."
"In certain cases, this product does have false positives, which the company should work on."
More Qualys Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Qualys Web Application Scanning is ranked 18th in Application Security Tools with 31 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Qualys Web Application Scanning is rated 7.8. 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 Qualys Web Application Scanning writes "A stable solution that can be used for infrastructure vulnerability scanning and web application scanning". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Qualys Web Application Scanning is most compared with OWASP Zap, Veracode, SonarQube, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and GitLab. See our Invicti vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning 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.