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

Invicti vs OWASP Zap 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

Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (24th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.7%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.1%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Invicti1.7%
OWASP Zap3.1%
Other95.2%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
NK
Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited
Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features
The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 platform is stable."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner, and sometimes it can find more vulnerabilities that another scanner can’t."
"We use simultaneous products, but I found this to be the best of the lot."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."
"The API is exceptional."
"The solution enables a person to add the certificate and check the queries, to see if there are any that are undefined, so a person can have a list of the types of queries and can trace them."
"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
 

Cons

"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."
"Improvement could be made in the area of production."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."
"We get too many false positives and that should definitely be improved."
"We have had stability issues a few times."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"Zap is very good for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"It's possibly just a limitation of the product itself but sometimes it won't scan a particular website so you have to manually go in and make some configuration changes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is competitive in the security market."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"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."
"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"The tool is open source."
"This solution is open source and free."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
892,868 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
11%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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 Business11
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
 

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...
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?
OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.
What needs improvement with OWASP Zap?
The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postm...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Netsparker
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
892,868 professionals have used our research since 2012.