We performed a comparison between Invicti and SonarQube 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 scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The reporting and the results are quick. It gets integrated within the pipeline well."
"Some of the most valuable features have been the latest up-to-date of the OWASP, the monitoring, the reporting, and the ease of use with the IDE plugins, in terms of integration."
"There are many options and examples available in the tool that help us fix the issues it shows us."
"The static code analysis is very good."
"The solution has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages."
"I like that it has a better dashboard compared to Clockwork. It's also stable."
"The stability is good."
"The most valuable feature of SonarQube I have found to be the configuration that has allowed us to can make adjusts to the demands of the code review. It gives a specified classification regarding the skill, prioritization, and it is easy for me to review and make my code."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."
"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 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."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"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."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"I would like to see more options for security, beyond the basics like SQL injection."
"We previously experienced issues with security but a segregated security violation has been implemented and the issues we experienced are being fixed."
"When we have a thousand products published over it, we expect it to be more efficient in terms of serving requests from the browser."
"The product's pricing could be lower."
"The solution could improve by having better-consulting services."
"There isn't a very good enterprise report."
"An improvement is with false positives. Sometimes the tool can say there is an issue in your code but, really, you have to do things in a certain way due to external dependencies, and I think it's very hard to indicate this is the case."
"From a reporting perspective, we sometimes have problems interpreting the vulnerability scan reports. For example, if it finds a possible threat, our analysts have to manually check the provided reports, and sometimes we have issues getting all the data needed to properly verify if it's accurate or not."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 111 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. 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 SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Invicti vs. SonarQube 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.
