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

Invicti vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
API Security (6th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.0%, down from 2.1% 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.
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."
"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of Burp Suite Professional is its ability to schedule tasks for scanning websites, which helps in performing regular checks of IP addresses."
"The most valuable feature of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is the Burp Intruder tool."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
"The tool provides complimentary services. It allows you to add a lot of extensions, and you can get extensions quite often. It is quite a flexible application."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."
"The most valuable features of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional are its ease of use and its cost efficiency."
"The solution scans web applications and supports APIs, which are the main features I really like."
 

Cons

"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."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"They need to improve their support in the documentation. Their support mechanism is missing. Their responsiveness, technical staff, and these types of things need to be improved, and comprehensive documentation is required. They should have good self-service portal enhancement"
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"There should be a heads up display like the one available in OWASP Zap."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"If your application uses multi-factor authentication, registration management cannot be automated."
"I am from Brazil. The currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep. It is almost six to one. It would be good if it can be sold in the local currency, and its price is cheaper for us."
"Improvement should be done as per the requirements of customers."
"There is not much automation in the tool."
"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is neither cheap nor expensive."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"It's a lower priced tool that we can rely on with good standard mechanisms."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
36%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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?
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 vulnerab...
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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.