Invicti vs Kiuwan comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Invicti Logo
3,602 views|1,868 comparisons
Kiuwan Logo
2,149 views|1,748 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Invicti and Kiuwan 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Invicti vs. Kiuwan Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done.""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 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.""The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us.""Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface.""The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running.""The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."

More Invicti Pros →

"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP.""I've found the reporting features the most helpful.""It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company.""The solution offers very good technical support.""The solution has a continuous integration process.""The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me.""The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report.""I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."

More Kiuwan Pros →

Cons
"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 higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker.""Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed.""Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing.""Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal.""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 scannings are not sufficiently updated.""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."

More Invicti Cons →

"The development-to-delivery phase.""The configuration hasn't been that good.""DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on.""The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit.""The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.""In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further.""It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality.""I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."

More Kiuwan Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It is competitive in the security market."
  • "OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
  • "We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
  • "I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
  • "The price should be 20% lower"
  • "Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
  • "We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."
  • "Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."
  • More Invicti Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Check with your account manager."
  • "Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
  • "I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
  • "This solution is cheaper than other tools."
  • "It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
  • "Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
  • "The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
  • More Kiuwan Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms.
    Top Answer:The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate… more »
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report.
    Top Answer:I'm not entirely sure about the price and business aspects, but I assume Checkmarx might be less expensive. I think Checkmarx might offer more affordable options, especially in its smaller business… more »
    Top Answer:Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    3,602
    Comparisons
    1,868
    Reviews
    7
    Average Words per Review
    343
    Rating
    8.4
    Views
    2,149
    Comparisons
    1,748
    Reviews
    6
    Average Words per Review
    570
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    SonarQube logo
    Compared 51% of the time.
    Checkmarx logo
    Compared 15% of the time.
    Fortify on Demand logo
    Compared 9% of the time.
    Veracode logo
    Compared 8% of the time.
    Snyk logo
    Compared 8% of the time.
    Also Known As
    Mavituna Netsparker
    Learn More
    Overview

    Invicti helps DevSecOps teams automate security tasks and save hundreds of hours each month by identifying web vulnerabilities that matter. Combining dynamic with interactive testing (DAST + IAST) and software composition analysis (SCA), Invicti scans every corner of an app to find what other tools miss with 99.98% accuracy, delivering on the promise of Zero Noise AppSec. Invicti helps discover all web assets — even ones that are lost, forgotten, or created by rogue departments. With an array of out-of-the-box integrations, DevSecOps teams can get ahead of their workloads to hit critical deadlines, improve processes, and communicate more effectively while reducing risk and hitting the ROI goals.

    Software analytics technology with a breadth of third party integrations that takes into account the wealth of applications your teams are currently using.

    We facilitate and encourage work between unlocalized teams. We understand the complexity of working on multi technology environments, constantly striving to increase the number of programming languages and technologies we support.

    Sample Customers
    Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
    DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company36%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Aerospace/Defense Firm9%
    Real Estate/Law Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization49%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Computer Software Company8%
    Government5%
    REVIEWERS
    Legal Firm33%
    Computer Software Company22%
    Non Tech Company11%
    Wireless Company11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Construction Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business48%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise40%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business9%
    Midsize Enterprise56%
    Large Enterprise35%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business60%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise24%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise61%
    Buyer's Guide
    Invicti vs. Kiuwan
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Kiuwan and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 21st in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. 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 Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Qualys Web Application Scanning, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and Snyk. See our Invicti vs. Kiuwan 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.