We performed a comparison between Invicti and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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."Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"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 is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"With the Extender Tab, if you know how to code then you can create a plugin and add it to Burp."
"The feature that we have found most valuable is that it comes with pre-set configurations. They have a set of predefined options where you can pick one and start scanning. We also have the option of creating our own configurations, like how often do the applications need to be scanned."
"The most valuable feature is Burp Collaborator."
"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications."
"The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"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 scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"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."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"Scanning APIs using PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional takes a lot of time."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"There should be a heads up display like the one available in OWASP Zap."
"The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can improve by having more features in the free version for beginners to try."
"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."
"The tool is very expensive."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 9th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6. 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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Nucleus. See our Invicti vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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.