Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Fortify Application Defender vs Invicti comparison

 

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

Fortify Application Defender
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (25th)
Invicti
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (15th), API Security (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Fortify Application Defender and Invicti aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Fortify Application Defender is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 0.8%, up 0.7% 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.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Fortify Application Defender0.8%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)20.4%
Checkmarx One10.4%
Other68.4%
Application Security Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Invicti11.7%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing17.7%
HCL AppScan14.0%
Other56.6%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Saroj-Patnaik - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable solution with excellent machine learning algorithms but expensive and lacking support
I primarily use Fortify Application Defender to assess whether our products can defend against applications Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications. Fortify Application Defender gives…
Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios."
"I am impressed with Invictus’ proof-based scanning. The solution has reduced the incidence of false positive vulnerabilities. It has helped us reduce our time and focus on vulnerabilities."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
 

Cons

"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."
"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."
"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten. It comes as an annual cloud subscription. The tool's pricing is around 50 lakhs."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive."
"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."
"The product’s price is much higher than other tools."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"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 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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
870,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify Application Defender?
I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy.
What needs improvement with Fortify Application Defender?
The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and...
What is your primary use case for Fortify Application Defender?
We use the solution for fast code review. It is integrated into our DevOps pipeline.
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.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
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, ...
 

Also Known As

HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender
Netsparker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Application Defender vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
870,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.