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

Invicti vs OWASP Zap vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of April 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 3.4%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.8%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.8%
OWASP Zap3.4%
Invicti1.5%
Other90.3%
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.
reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration
Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios."
"NetSparker is a very easy to use and understand product."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"The most valuable features that I've found in this solution was the level of accuracy and also that the process of scanning was very quick and we're easily able to change the frame of a scan."
"The interface is easy to use."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."
"If you're a company and you've got your own websites, internally and externally, it's great."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"We use Veracode static analysis during development to eliminate vulnerability issues"
"It has given our management a view into issues with all of our product lines. We have three products and all of them were scanned. As a result, the project lead for each product has taken measures to improve things."
"The static scan and the detailed reports, which include issue information and permissions, are the most valuable features."
"Our development team use this solution for static code analysis and pen testing."
"For use cases where our company buys a product with the source code, but only the final executables or the binaries, only Veracode is able to work on that type of tool."
"The solution's ability to help create secure software is very valuable; we're a zero-trust networking company so we want to have the ability to say that we're practicing security seriously, and having something like Veracode allows us to have confidence when we're speaking to people about our product that we can back up what we're doing with a certification, with a reputable platform, and say, "This is what we're using to scan an application, here's the number of vulnerabilities that are on an application, and here's the risk that we're accepting.""
"The developers' awareness of the security weaknesses within their code has improved. They aren't just mitigating these issues, they are realizing these are, in fact, issues that have to be dealt with."
"Just off the cuff, the cost of the license is small in comparison to the value it brings."
 

Cons

"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"Maybe supported clients can be improved. It still does not search vulnerabilities in DB2 databases, for example."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
"I find that the scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"The computers perform somewhat slowly when loading a large number of queries into memory."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"Sometimes, we get some false positives."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"It does not have a reporting structure for an OS-based vulnerability report, whereas its peers such as Fortify and Checkmarx have this ability. Checkmarx also provides a better visibility of the code flow."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow... Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it."
"The support team could be more responsive, and the dependency of users on the support team is too high and should be reduced."
"There needs to be better API integration to the development team's pipeline, which is something that is missing and needs to be improved."
"It would be better if we had a channel for direct communication with the engineering team to speed up the process of providing feedback."
"Veracode has areas for improvement in that the scan takes some time for each Jar depending on the size."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"I think if they could improve the operations around accepted vulnerabilities, we would see improvements in our productivity."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"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'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."
"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."
"This solution is open source and free."
"The tool is open source."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"The pricing for Veracode is high, making it difficult for beginners to afford."
"The pricing is reasonable compared to other tools."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"I think licensing needs to be changed or updated so that it works with adjustments. Pricing is expensive compared to the amount of scanning we perform."
"Users in some forums mentioned that pricing for this solution can be quite high."
"Its complexity makes it quite expensive, but it’s all worth it, with all the engineering in the background."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis could improve."
"The pricing is a little on the high side but since we combine our product into one suite, it is easy to do and works well for us."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
11%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

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
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
 

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...
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-t...
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 r...
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...
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 web...
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.
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. Son...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabil...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Netsparker
No data available
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

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
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: March 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.