We performed a comparison between Acunetix 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."We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"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."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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 higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". 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". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and SonarQube, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
