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."There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"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."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"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."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"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."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"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 solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"The vulnerability identification speed should be improved."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"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."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
Acunetix is ranked 16th 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, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Acunetix vs. Invicti 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.
