"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"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."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"The scanner could be better."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"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."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 1st in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 6 reviews while Invicti is ranked 13th in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Invicti is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "Good reporting and vulnerability management, but needs better performance and resource utilization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, OWASP Zap, Veracode and Checkmarx, whereas Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Veracode. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Invicti report.
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.
