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

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)
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (25th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
10th
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 January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OWASP Zap3.9%
Invicti1.5%
Other94.6%
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.
Prasant Pokarnaa - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies
Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed
OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios."
"The platform is stable."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"The interface is easy to use."
"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."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
 

Cons

"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"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 vulnerability remediation over time."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"This solution is open source and free."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
879,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
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?
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 needs improvement with Invicti?
The main 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, ...
What is your primary use case for Invicti?
I use Invicti for web application testing and API testing. I want to confirm that I am still using Invicti and SonarQube.
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 do you like most about OWASP Zap?
The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...
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.
 

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: December 2025.
879,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.