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

Invicti vs Parasoft SOAtest 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)
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
API Security (7th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th)
Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
19th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), API Testing Tools (10th), Test Automation Tools (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.6%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
Proactive scanning measures and realistic audit recommendations enhance development focus
Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment. This feature helps us focus on priorities and prioritize the development team's effort, integrating seamlessly with DevOps to facilitate proactive scans of environments. Invicti also provides audit recommendations that are quite realistic, making it easy to discuss plans with developers.
Nghiêm Phương - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality and security improvements drive user satisfaction
We have many customers, but with Parasoft SOAtest, we just focus on .NET, Java, and PHP protocols and message formats. For deployment, it runs on-premise with Parasoft SOAtest. The transition from manual testing can be challenging, and it's the first time they're using automation testing with Parasoft SOAtest. For the tool itself, Parasoft SOAtest, I would rate it as great with an overall rating of 10 out of 10.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The platform is stable."
"Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."
"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
 

Cons

"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"One area that could use improvement is the cryptography capabilities in Parasoft SOAtest. It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 is competitive in the security market."
"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."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"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."
"The price is around $5,000 USD."
"They do have a confusing licensing structure."
"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."
"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."
"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."
"The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
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 do you like most about Parasoft SOAtest?
Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro. The new management does not want subscription tools around, aiming for scripted tests us...
What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
SOAtest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.