Checkmarx One vs Invicti comparison

Checkmarx and Invicti are both solutions in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2, while Invicti is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.5. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Invicti users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Invicti and Checkmarx One are both key players in the security testing tools category, serving different user preferences. Invicti appears to have the upper hand in terms of pricing and customer service, whereas Checkmarx One is favored for its comprehensive features.

Features: Invicti offers ease of integration, accurate vulnerability scans, and streamlined security assessments. Checkmarx One stands out with static and dynamic application security testing and broader security coverage.

Room for Improvement: Invicti could improve its reporting outputs, scalability, and handling of larger projects. Checkmarx One needs more intuitive navigation, faster analysis times, and could simplify deployment.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti is known for its straightforward deployment and responsive customer service. Checkmarx One, while more complex to deploy, provides comprehensive support, though response times vary.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti's pricing is considered reasonable, offering a positive ROI. Checkmarx One, although more expensive, delivers substantial returns, justifying its cost with advanced features.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. Invicti Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Invicti

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,665 peers since 2012

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...

Featured Reviews

Nuno-Santos

Cybersecurity Analyst at a tech services company with 11-50 employees

Has improved real-time threat detection and unified cloud protection through AI and automation

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is creating some confusion in terms of names because this is recent. They changed the names of the products and are now clarifying their offer. The family of the products is not easy to follow because it's very recent. Regarding the generative AI security tool, I know for sure it's Agentic. Based on my experience with Palo Alto, I can suggest what Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks could make better or what additional functions could be added. This is the best tool in the market. It's not the time to tell what they could do better because it's a recent tool. The market is now adopting it. Our experience doesn't show that they need to do more.

Read full review

Shahzad Shahzad

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.

Read full review

Valavan Sivgalingam

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 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."

"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 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."

"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."

"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."

"Checkmarx One has definitely helped us to save time and reduce the need for additional security resources, meaning employees."

"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."

"Vulnerability details is valuable."

"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."

"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."

"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."

More Checkmarx One pros

"The platform is stable."

"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."

"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."

"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."

"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."

"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."

"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."

"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."

More Invicti pros

Cons

"Some aspects of the GUI can be confusing and make it difficult for me to find certain options or navigate where needed."

"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is creating some confusion in terms of names because this is recent."

"The pricing is high, making ROI challenging to justify, especially during transitions between solutions."

"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."

"The negative aspects or areas for improvement in the product include the fact that the cost might be a bit high, which challenges commercials, but not technically."

"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."

"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."

"Scanning speed optimization is an area where improvements can be made, and we can reduce false positives."

"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."

"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"

"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."

"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."

"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."

"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement. We need enterprise-level information instead of repo-level details. Unlike Appiro, Invicti does not provide portfolio-level insights into vulnerability remediation over time."

"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."

"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."

"They need to improve their support in the documentation. Their support mechanism is missing. Their responsiveness, technical staff, and these types of things need to be improved, and comprehensive documentation is required. They should have good self-service portal enhancement"

"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."

More Invicti cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."

"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."

"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."

"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."

"It is an expensive solution."

"It's relatively expensive."

"It is the right price for quality delivery."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."

"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."

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"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."

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."

"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."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Performing Arts

10%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

The solution is costly, with high-end capabilities suitable for enterprises. It is less affordable for startups or sm...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

Regarding areas for improvement, the tool performs its functions well, but frequent name changes across Palo Alto Net...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks serves as our primary tool for understanding our assets and performing API integra...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Wiz vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 18% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 17% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 8% of the time

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 2% of the time

More Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Competitors

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 47% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 13% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

Tenable.io Web Application Scanning vs Invicti

Compared 3% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

January 2026

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks report

Download Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks product report

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

January 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

January 2026

Download Invicti product report

Also Known As

No data available

Netsparker

Overview

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks provides comprehensive cybersecurity management, focusing on enhancing security operations with advanced automation and threat intelligence, addressing complex security challenges efficiently.

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks integrates cloud-scale data analytics and automation to streamline security operations, enabling faster threat detection and response. It leverages AI and machine learning to provide real-time threat intelligence and automate routine tasks, reducing the burden on security teams. Users benefit from improved visibility across networks and greater operational efficiency, making it crucial for enterprises aiming to secure their digital assets against evolving cyber threats.

What are the key features of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

Automated Threat Detection: Identifies and mitigates threats in real-time using AI algorithms.
Advanced Analytics: Provides in-depth data insights for proactive threat prevention.
Incident Management: Streamlines incident response with automated workflows.
Scalable Architecture: Offers flexibility to grow with organizational needs.

What benefits or ROI should you expect from Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks reviews?

Increased Efficiency: Automation reduces manual efforts in threat management.
Enhanced Security Posture: Improved visibility leads to better threat preparedness.
Cost Savings: Minimizes expenses related to manual threat detection and response.
Scalability: Grows with the organization, reducing the need for constant upgrades.

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is favored in sectors like finance, healthcare, and telecommunications, where data security is paramount. Its ability to integrate with existing infrastructure and provide real-time insights makes it a preferred choice for securing sensitive information and ensuring compliance within industry regulations.

Palo Alto Networks

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

Invicti helps DevSecOps teams automate security tasks and save hundreds of hours each month by identifying web vulnerabilities that matter. Combining dynamic with interactive testing (DAST + IAST) and software composition analysis (SCA), Invicti scans every corner of an app to find what other tools miss with 99.98% accuracy, delivering on the promise of Zero Noise AppSec. Invicti helps discover all web assets — even ones that are lost, forgotten, or created by rogue departments. With an array of out-of-the-box integrations, DevSecOps teams can get ahead of their workloads to hit critical deadlines, improve processes, and communicate more effectively while reducing risk and hitting the ROI goals.

Invicti

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

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Invicti

January 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Invicti

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. Invicti report.

See our list of best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) vendors, best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors, and best Container Security vendors.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.