We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan 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."It comes with all of the templates that we need. For example, we are a company that is regulated by PCI. In order to be PCI compliant, we have a lot of checks and procedures to which we have to comply."
"We use it as a security testing application."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"The product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The security and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"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 solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"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."
"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."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications."
"It's a little bit basic when you talk about the Web Services. If AppScan improved its maturity on Web Services testing, that would be good."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"Many silly false positives are produced."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use."
"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 scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"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."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 39 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". 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". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, Checkmarx One and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Veracode. See our HCL AppScan vs. Invicti report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
