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

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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)
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (14th), API Security (7th)
OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
3rd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
DevSecOps (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 12.3%, up from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 18.1%, down from 22.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
Proactive scanning measures and realistic audit recommendations enhance development focus
Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment. This feature helps us focus on priorities and prioritize the development team's effort, integrating seamlessly with DevOps to facilitate proactive scans of environments. Invicti also provides audit recommendations that are quite realistic, making it easy to discuss plans with developers.
Navin N - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution
We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this.  Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"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."
"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."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The user interface is ok and it is very simple to use."
"Technical support has been good."
"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
 

Cons

"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"I'm not sure licensing, but on the pricing, it's a bit costly. It's a bit overpriced. Though it is an enterprise tool, there are other tools also with similar functionalities."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"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."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"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."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"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."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"The price is okay."
"This solution is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
What needs improvement with Invicti?
Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement. We need enterprise-level information instead of repo-level details. Unlike Appiro, Invicti does not provide portfolio-level insights into vulnerab...
What do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?
The solution's technical support was very helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
The price of Fortify WebInspect is high, with the cost depending on the number of virtual users. It is approximately 25% higher than other solutions.
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate. The cost of the license depends on the number of virtual users and, in comparison to...
 

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: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.