No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmarx One vs Invicti comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto N...
Sponsored
Ranking in Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (29th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (13th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (16th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (11th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (12th), Software Supply Chain Security (6th), Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management (CIEM) (6th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (5th)
Checkmarx One
Ranking in Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
3rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), AI Security (1st)
Invicti
Ranking in Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (10th), Container Security (24th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th)
 

Featured Reviews

SJ
Technical Solutions Architect at IBM
Cloud security has improved as AI-driven runtime protection detects threats and reduces incidents
In my opinion, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks could be improved or enhanced in various ways. I don't have an idea about that yet because for that you actually need to use two or three different other tools to make a basic comparison. If you ask me how good the tool is, I would fairly rate it quite high. The tool is very popular, and customers can already see that it is one of the cloud leaders in the security space. The platform had a very good feature which provides documentation links about how to use a specific feature on the UI. It takes you to the proper documentation page where it suggests what to do and tells you about the steps that need to be done for a resource deployment. My thoughts about improving the product which I believe could greatly aid vendors is that it used to be a very user-friendly tool, but now they have incorporated everything under one umbrella. It has XDR, XSOAR, and Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. Before, we used to have separate modules and separate environments for each of these capabilities or features. Right now, it is a little complex and users would take their own time to know the tool better. This is something that would have been way better, but I would say there would be different opinions on this. Talking about user-friendliness, it has decreased now.
Shahzad Shahzad - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution
Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance
Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.
Valavan Sivgalingam - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager, Security Engineering at ESS
Dynamic testing regularly identifies web vulnerabilities and has strong false positive confirmations
It has good false positive confirmations, confirmed issues identification, and proof of exploit-related features as part of it. We use Invicti for these things in our portfolios. The solution includes Proof-Based Scanning technology. Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios. For both the API endpoints and web applications, we do regular testing on a monthly basis for all our releases. Invicti does a good job. The only concern is on the performance side, but other than that, we find it really helpful in identifying web vulnerabilities. A full scan takes more time based on your website and other factors, but for us, it takes more than two to three days. The scan performance can be improved upon. When we check with them, they discuss proof-based scanning and related aspects. However, there could be intermittent results that could help us.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The capabilities of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks are valuable because it is the best product in the market."
"The AI and automation features in detecting and responding to high-risk threats are impressive; it's one of the best tools regarding AI technology and unifies security in one platform in real-time, improving vulnerability analysis, incident response, and compliance reporting."
"Previously with Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, I deployed this product for one of my customers, and after three to four months, they said that previously they had around four hours of MTTR, and now it has reduced to just 15 to 20 minutes."
"I have seen several benefits from using Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks: It was easy to use and easy to migrate from the IBM platform."
"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks has impacted our organization positively by keeping our machines secure and our team using the dashboard to find issues quickly."
"Overall, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is a technically strong product, and I rate it ten out of ten."
"From a technical standpoint or pricing, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is a stronger solution in the market at the moment compared to other products from ConnectWise or Symantec."
"I have absolutely seen improvements in our incident close rates, with mean time to detect and respond reduced significantly, sometimes by at least forty to fifty percent."
"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."
"Checkmarx is a powerful scanning tool, and it’s essential to have one of these products to build a safe and stable application when it comes to inviting customers to use your online services."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms, its ease of use is another good feature, and it also supports most of the languages."
"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly and it's a very user-friendly product."
 

Cons

"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is creating some confusion in terms of names because this is recent."
"My thoughts about improving the product which I believe could greatly aid vendors is that it used to be a very user-friendly tool, but now they have incorporated everything under one umbrella."
"Some aspects of the GUI can be confusing and make it difficult for me to find certain options or navigate where needed."
"In my opinion, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks can be improved by addressing forensic information collection and storage, although I cannot suggest specific things right now, based on what customers might need."
"From the commercial perspective, we have some limitations because Palo Alto has a minimum number of users of endpoints set at 200, which is quite high for the Italian market."
"Overall, I rate Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks as an eight out of ten. I think that it could improve on price, as I know that the Google solution has the best price, and this is one of the conditions."
"As per my experience with Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, the UI could be simpler."
"The pricing is high, making ROI challenging to justify, especially during transitions between solutions."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve."
"It is an expensive solution."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems."
"The default module that provides statistics is basic, and you need more elaborate information to do vulnerability management."
"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"I find that the scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"Maybe supported clients can be improved. It still does not search vulnerabilities in DB2 databases, for example."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"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."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"The solution is costly."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."
"It's relatively expensive."
"Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications)."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise4
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?
I am not fully aware of the pricing and licensing of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. The pricing is also based on...
What needs improvement with Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?
In my opinion, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks could be improved or enhanced in various ways. I don't have an idea...
What is your primary use case for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?
The usual use cases for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks that I have been working with mostly are as simple as dete...
What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additi...
What needs improvement with Checkmarx?
One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If i...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
The setup cost is pretty competitive. For example, if you want to talk about the SAST license, it comes to about $150...
What needs improvement with Invicti?
At this time, there is nothing that comes to mind. However, most of the products in the market are pretty much neck-t...
What is your primary use case for Invicti?
I have worked on a couple of products, specifically in web application security. I have worked on Invicti, and with r...
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Netsparker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.