We performed a comparison between Invicti and OWASP Zap 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."The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"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."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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."
"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."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 25 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 37 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect and Qualys Web Application Scanning, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand. See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap 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.
