We performed a comparison between Invicti and Ixia BreakingPoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick 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."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"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."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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 originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"The price could be better."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 8 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Veracode, whereas Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics. See our Invicti vs. Ixia BreakingPoint report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
