We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand 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."The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"The solution is very fast."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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 license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". 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". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Checkmarx One. See our Fortify on Demand 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.