No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Invicti
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th), Container Security (24th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (10th), API Security (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (9th)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
3rd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
DevSecOps (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 8.4%, up from 7.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 11.5%, up from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing11.5%
Invicti8.4%
Other80.1%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

PrashantUppuluri - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Automated scanning has strengthened web application security and supports hybrid protection
A good scanning engine is what I appreciate about Invicti. When you want to find out the vulnerabilities within your web applications, Invicti has done a thorough job with respect to filtering out the vulnerabilities and identifying the risk factors with respect to the security modules within the solution. Invicti does have a segment of the solution which works on the automated scanning engine. As long as the license is active, the scanners that work within the solution are pretty effective. With respect to SAST and DAST, being a real-time scanning engine is one of the portfolios and one of the selling factors of the solution. Invicti is known to be a solution that works within the hybrid environment, be it cloud, on-premises, or a mix and match across multiple marketplaces. It does a thorough job. Most importantly, Invicti is a very good SAST and DAST solution that is very competitive in the market with respect to competitors. Invicti is a part of the Magic Quadrant with respect to Gartner's Magic Quadrant and has made a very good customer database and pipeline within the marketplace locally. With respect to security impacts in terms of support, Invicti is pretty much supportive. With respect to use cases or the POCs I have run on the solution, we have identified a couple of vulnerabilities and Invicti was able to trace them, detect, and quarantine the attacks.
AP
Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"Netsparker offers some pretty features: Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms, this feature expands the attack surface, 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, and a very useful API for automating the scans."
"NetSparker is a very easy to use and understand product."
"It has improved the security of our code by scanning it and finding security defects."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"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 a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."
"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"My experience with technical support has been good."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities and is better at it than other products."
"It is a good product, comparable to AppScan, quite scalable, and offers good cost/value with the support and backing from Micro Focus."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
 

Cons

"Maybe supported clients can be improved. It still does not search vulnerabilities in DB2 databases, for example."
"It is a good tool, as we found out with the Community Edition trial, but the price point is quite expensive for a startup or average-sized company."
"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."
"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 scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"Perhaps the custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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"
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The price is okay."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?
I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Aaron's
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.