Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs Invicti comparison

The compared Black Duck and Invicti solutions aren't in the same category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in FTT , and holds a 23.3% mindshare in the category. Invicti is ranked #5 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.7, and holds a 11.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Invicti users who would recommend it.

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Read 4 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing reviews

1,067 Views
117 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Invicti

Read 30 Invicti reviews

2,738 Views
520 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Invicti

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Defensics Protocol Fuzzing and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about PortSwigger, OWASP, GitLab and others in Fuzz Testing Tools.

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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)

Invicti

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (15th), API Security (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 23.3%, up 19.3% compared to last year.
Invicti, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 11.7% mindshare, up 10.5% since last year.

Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing	23.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	31.5%
GitLab	22.6%
Other	22.599999999999994%

Fuzz Testing Tools

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Invicti	11.7%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	17.7%
HCL AppScan	14.0%
Other	56.6%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Featured Reviews

Sarath Kumar Choday

Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies

Product security tests for switches and router sections

Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.

Read full review

Kunal M

Capability Center Leader, ETRM Platforms at Shell

Proactive scanning measures and realistic audit recommendations enhance development focus

Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment. This feature helps us focus on priorities and prioritize the development team's effort, integrating seamlessly with DevOps to facilitate proactive scans of environments. Invicti also provides audit recommendations that are quite realistic, making it easy to discuss plans with developers.

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

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

"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."

"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."

"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."

"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."

"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."

"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."

"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."

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

More Invicti pros

Cons

"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."

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

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

"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."

"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."

"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."

"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"

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

More Invicti cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

"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."

"The price should be 20% lower"

"It is competitive in the security market."

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

"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."

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

"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."

"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 Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?

As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.

See all answers

What do you like most about Invicti?

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

See all answers

What needs improvement with Invicti?

The main 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, ...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 30% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 15% of the time

Veracode vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 14% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 12% of the time

Snyk vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 9% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 17% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Invicti

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Snyk vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. GitLab

September 2025

Download Defensics Protocol Fuzzing product report

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

October 2025

Download Invicti product report

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics

Netsparker

Overview

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

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

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

September 2025

Free Report: Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Fuzz Testing 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.