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

Checkmarx SAST vs Invicti Web + API comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 6, 2026

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

Checkmarx SAST
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Invicti Web + API
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (30th), DevSecOps (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx SAST is 2.3%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti Web + API is 2.6%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Acunetix2.6%
Checkmarx SAST2.3%
Other95.1%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Tharindu Malwenna - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Application Security Engineer at a newspaper with 5,001-10,000 employees
Has supported early vulnerability detection but requires tuning to reduce false positives and scanning delays
When assessing the accuracy and efficiency of Checkmarx SAST scanning capabilities, they are currently recommending that doing the full scan is the main, correct way of scanning the repositories. However, based on the repository size we have, it sometimes takes more than 10 minutes for larger repositories, which is a downside. The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities. Those are the major things that we have to fine-tune from our end. I would rate Checkmarx SAST around a seven, as it does have some false positives we have to work with, which are the major concerning things. The number of false positives is significant because we cannot implement policies because of this.
Rahul Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees
Identifies vulnerabilities across bulk web applications but needs better support and cleaner reports
The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers. The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning. In terms of reporting, Acunetix is excellent because it can generate different types of reports, such as an executive summary report, detailed reports, and developer reports that can be shared directly with developers. Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and OWASP. Acunetix provides a centralized report with compliance-related aspects and a vulnerability timeline, effectively helping reduce vulnerabilities and save time.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."
"The detailed reports from Checkmarx SAST help with our security process by showing details about which line is actually vulnerable, which is beneficial for the developers, and I do not have any suggestions or inputs on that area."
"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."
"This helps us a lot in identifying vulnerabilities in early stages, and the integration within the IDEs helps developers get the results into their IDE itself, making it easier for them to fix vulnerabilities."
"The CX1 is a unified platform that covers all components such as SAST, SCA, DAST, container scanning, and infrastructure code, which is quite beneficial because some clients need one-stop solutions for all their needs."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"It has been able to find some vulnerabilities, and we've been able to remediate our websites and vulnerabilities, thanks to Acunetix."
"Acunetix gives us code-level identification of vulnerabilities and a good understanding of the code-level vulnerability fixes, which is much more helpful for us because we can understand how to fix the vulnerabilities at the code level."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Segregation of reports is really, really good with Acunetix; it provides us with a lot of in-depth details."
"Every organization who has their assets over the internet and are exposed to a public website needs to have vulnerability assessment using Acunetix."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"Their technical support has been very active. If I have an issue, I can reach out to them and get an answer pretty quick."
 

Cons

"The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities."
"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."
"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."
"The main challenge with Checkmarx SAST is the price. The price is a challenge because Checkmarx SAST is a very big brand, and many mid-sized companies cannot afford it as they are very price-conscious."
"I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in communication."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"One of the biggest problems I've had with Acunetix is that it's hard to replicate things manually because you don't get the raw packet."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"However, it doesn't seem very helpful or useful for scanning web services, and that has what I feel that the organization could work better on that."
"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."
"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."
"Tool is quite expensive though compared to other tools."
"There are quite a few false positives that come out. It's mostly based upon finding XSS vulnerabilities, even though we know that XSS vulnerabilities do not exist within some of the web applications because of some frameworks we're using."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."
"The price is exceptionally high."
"The solution is expensive."
"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."
"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
916,240 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise19
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?
We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.
What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?
I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in com...
What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?
I manage the application security side of the products here, currently utilizing solutions such as Checkmarx, Akamai, Traceable, and Invicti, which are the security scanning tools that we use. In t...
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
In a typical enterprise environment, Acunetix is mainly used for visibility, detection, and investigation across network traffic. The main use cases usually fall into a few core areas, with primary...
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I advise that Acunetix is the best option. Invest time in proper initial configuration and scope definitions. The tool is powerful, but its effectiveness depends heavily on how the authenticated ar...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Acunetix?
Everything is perfect and good, including the pricing and all related aspects.
 

Also Known As

SAST
AcuSensor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx SAST vs. Invicti Web + API and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
916,240 professionals have used our research since 2012.