We performed a comparison between GitGuardian Public Monitoring and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."
"One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository... With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots."
"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."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"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."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"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."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"I would like to see improvement in some of the user interface features... When one secret is leaked in multiple files or multiple repositories, it will appear on the dashboard. But when you click on that secret, all the occurrences will appear on the page. It would be better to have one secret per occurrence, directly, so that we don't have to click to get to the list of all the occurrences."
"I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers."
"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."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."
"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."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
More GitGuardian Public Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
GitGuardian Public Monitoring is ranked 27th in Application Security Tools with 2 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. GitGuardian Public Monitoring is rated 9.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GitGuardian Public Monitoring writes "Helps us prioritize remediation tasks efficiently, improves our overall security visibility, and is effective in detecting and alerting us to security leaks quickly". 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". GitGuardian Public Monitoring is most compared with Snyk, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Veracode. See our GitGuardian Public Monitoring vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security 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.