We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand 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."Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"It improves future security scans."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it."
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"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 scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"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."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Reporting could be improved."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available."
"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". 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 on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode and Coverity, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Rapid7 AppSpider. See our Fortify on Demand 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.
