We performed a comparison between Invicti and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"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."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"The API is exceptional."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"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 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."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 25 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 37 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect and Qualys Web Application Scanning, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand. See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
