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."One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"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."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"It combines both web application vulnerability management and internal vulnerability management on one platform and dashboard. Usually, you have to purchase separate tools."
"It is a very stable solution."
"By using QualysGuard, we are able to finish external scans with assured results in half the time."
"Licensing is the most valuable. Qualys provides the best licensing for companies. It is the best product for the development purposes of web applications. The product has a lot of integrations."
"This product is designed for easy scalability and can easily scale up without major challenges."
"Key features include: Cloud-based, so the installation is not so tedious. Easily deployed. Highly scalable. Comprehensive reporting."
"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 feature that I have found most valuable is the progressive scan. It is good. It's done in 24 hours."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"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."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The pricing does not seem to be competitive."
"The solution needs to adjust its pricing. They should make it more affordable."
"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."
"Sometimes the response time is low because the handshake fails, and then you have to re-login and start again."
"The product's pricing could be better."
"There should be better visibility into the application."
"It should have better automatic reporting."
"Deployment can be complicated."
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 19th 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 HCL AppScan, whereas Qualys Web Application Scanning is most compared with OWASP Zap, Veracode, SonarQube, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and ImmuniWeb. 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.
