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."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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.