Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Fortify Software Security Center vs Invicti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Fortify Software Security C...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 1.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Invicti1.5%
Fortify Software Security Center1.2%
Other97.3%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Diego Caicedo Lescano - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
Enables centralized analysis and improves governance through seamless tool integration
The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console. You can centralize both static analysis and dynamic analysis, and correlate both analyses in one tool to get better results by combining those independent results from each solution. That is outstanding, and there is no tool I have seen on the market that offers these capabilities. I appreciate the interoperability with other solutions from Fortify Software Security Center. Because we are using Kiuwan, you can run Kiuwan analyses and integrate them with Fortify Software Security Center to get those results in a single console. That is a good console for centralizing things in one point. That is one of the best features of the on-premises Fortify.
Valavan Sivgalingam - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager, Security Engineering at ESS
Dynamic testing regularly identifies web vulnerabilities and has strong false positive confirmations
It has good false positive confirmations, confirmed issues identification, and proof of exploit-related features as part of it. We use Invicti for these things in our portfolios. The solution includes Proof-Based Scanning technology. Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios. For both the API endpoints and web applications, we do regular testing on a monthly basis for all our releases. Invicti does a good job. The only concern is on the performance side, but other than that, we find it really helpful in identifying web vulnerabilities. A full scan takes more time based on your website and other factors, but for us, it takes more than two to three days. The scan performance can be improved upon. When we check with them, they discuss proof-based scanning and related aspects. However, there could be intermittent results that could help us.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"It's very important because they want to scan their source code every day, so we provide CICD integration to our customers so they can auto build and auto test every day, get reports, and fix issues."
"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."
"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."
"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."
"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 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 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."
"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"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."
 

Cons

"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"The support for Fortify on-premises is the same as for the other products. I would say the support is not good and I would rate it a three out of ten."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"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."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."
"The solution is priced fair."
"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"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 because it has unlimited scan numbers."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
882,594 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?
In my opinion, there are no areas that could be improved with Fortify Software Security Center. I would say it is a good product and a mature product. However, the SAST has many improvement areas. ...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
We have installed Fortify Static Code Analysis, SAST, in Ecuador in two customers. The Fortify ScanCentral includes three components: SAST, Fortify Software Security Center, and the WebInspect.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
The setup cost is pretty competitive. For example, if you want to talk about the SAST license, it comes to about $150 or sometimes less than $100, depending on the conversion or the number of licen...
What needs improvement with Invicti?
At this time, there is nothing that comes to mind. However, most of the products in the market are pretty much neck-to-neck competitors. Speaking about it, there are a couple of factors which they ...
What is your primary use case for Invicti?
I have worked on a couple of products, specifically in web application security. I have worked on Invicti, and with respect to PAM, I have worked with BeyondTrust. I have not worked specifically fo...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect
Netsparker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Software Security Center vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
882,594 professionals have used our research since 2012.