Invicti vs OWASP Zap comparison

Invicti and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.5, while OWASP is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 1.8% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 31 Invicti reviews

5,734 Views
3,383 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,774 Views
8,072 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Invicti

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Invicti and OWASP Zap are key players in the web application security testing market. Invicti seems to have the upper hand due to its user-friendly automation and pricing model, while OWASP Zap stands strong with its feature richness.

Features: Invicti users benefit from advanced automation capabilities, scanning accuracy, and detailed vulnerability assessments. OWASP Zap offers strong customization, a powerful suite of features, and adaptability in security testing.

Room for Improvement: Invicti's reporting could be more intuitive and its data analysis more streamlined. OWASP Zap needs better integration with development workflows and improved alignment with modern development needs.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti offers straightforward deployment and responsive customer service, making it suitable for organizations of various sizes. OWASP Zap requires a more technical setup but benefits from strong community support.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti provides competitive pricing and clear ROI through efficient security assessments. OWASP Zap's open-source status offers cost advantages, though the time investment in mastering its features can be impactful.

To learn more, read our detailed Invicti vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 896,692 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

Container Security (25th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (6th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

14th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.9%, 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
Product	Mindshare (%)
Invicti	1.8%
OWASP Zap	2.9%
Other	95.3%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Valavan Sivgalingam

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.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I'd recommend Netsparker for anyone who wants to make a security assessment for web applications."

"NetSparker is a very easy to use and understand product."

"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."

"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."

"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."

"I would definitely recommend it to those who really want to know in-depth details of their applications/products regarding security."

"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."

"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."

More Invicti pros

"The automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy, and the major advantage to this solution is the privacy it offers."

"The product has improved our application security engagement, helps with our in-house review so we sometimes don't need an external third-party tester, and once we get it from OWASP Zap, we have an idea of the inherent vulnerabilities in the application, which is a plus to save cost and improve our application accuracy practice."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications."

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

"The most valuable feature is the spidering because, being a security person, it is very important for me to know each and every section of that application, so we cannot afford to miss any single web page or any single link on a particular website."

"The scalability of this product is very good."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"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."

"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 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."

"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."

"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."

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."

"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."

More Invicti cons

"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."

"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."

"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

"The disadvantage of Zap is that we're unable to customize reports as it only has a single standard format."

"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."

"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price should be 20% lower"

"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."

"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."

"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."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"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."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

"The tool is open-source."

"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."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"This solution is open source and free."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Government

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	22

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 9% of the time

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

Bright vs Invicti

Compared 4% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Pentest-Tools.com vs OWASP Zap

Compared 3% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

May 2026

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

May 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Netsparker

No data available

Overview

Invicti offers advanced web application security testing focused on identifying vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. Its Proof-Based Scanning minimizes false positives and integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, making it an effective tool for enterprise environments.

Invicti provides comprehensive scanning capabilities that include detecting and verifying critical vulnerabilities and security data consolidation. Its scalable scanning engine and robust API support allow for flexible testing across diverse environments, including web and API testing. Despite some drawbacks like limited single sign-on integration and slow scanning speeds for large applications, Invicti remains a popular choice for automating security assessments, ensuring compliance with standards like OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, and GDPR.

What are the key features of Invicti?

Comprehensive Vulnerability Scanning: Detects vulnerabilities like SQL injection and XSS.
Proof-Based Scanning: Confirms exploitability and reduces false positives.
CI/CD Integration: Seamlessly integrates with development pipelines.
Security Data Consolidation: Centralizes data for better insights.
User-Friendly Interface: Facilitates easy analysis and reporting.
Scalable Scanning Engine: Supports testing in enterprise environments.
Robust API Support: Enhances flexibility in testing.

What benefits and ROI should users look for in reviews?

Proactive Security: Actively identifies and verifies vulnerabilities to prevent breaches.
Regulatory Compliance: Helps maintain compliance with standards like PCI DSS and GDPR.
Efficient Vulnerability Management: Aids in prioritizing remediation efforts.
Integration Capabilities: Streamlines processes with CI/CD pipeline compatibility.

In industries like finance, healthcare, and e-commerce, Invicti is implemented to bolster security through automated vulnerability assessments. Its ability to provide insightful reports and remediation suggestions assists companies in efficiently managing security risks and achieving compliance with critical regulatory standards.

Invicti

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

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

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

April 2026

Free Report: Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.