We performed a comparison between GitHub 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."A great feature is being able to have different repositories and different kinds of projects in a single solution at a single time. It's just a click away."
"The most valuable feature is the fact that it's cloud-based, and we don't have to manage an on-premises server to use it."
"We've found the technical support to be very helpful."
"It is really simple to set up."
"This product is very good for storing and versioning code."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it can support you for most of the road map and it can automate some tasks which works really well with collaboration with the teams. They are really interested in how they organize the history of the code itself which is good."
"I did not have any issues with the stability of Github. It worked seamlessly."
"GitHub is convenient and easy to use."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"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."
"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."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"Lacks sufficient support in terms of professional services that could be provided."
"The product must document the CI/CD process more."
"There could be more integration into Azure."
"Scalability is an area with a shortcoming, because of which it has room for improvement."
"This solution could be improved if migration was fully automated to make it easy, for example, to migrate repositories into GitHub."
"The solution needs some more controls for deleting code."
"GitHub should provide more integration in their next release, including integrating with Jenkins, CI/CD and Jira."
"I would want to see some form of code security scanning implemented."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
GitHub is ranked 13th in Application Security Tools with 64 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. GitHub is rated 8.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". 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". GitHub is most compared with Snyk, AWS CodeCommit, Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and Fortify on Demand, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect. See our GitHub vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
