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

Invicti vs Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Invicti
Ranking in Container Security
24th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (8th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Se...
Ranking in Container Security
19th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Invicti is 0.7%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is 2.0%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes2.0%
Invicti0.7%
Other97.3%
Container Security
 

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.
Daniel Stevens - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Engineer at Galley
Offers easy management and container connection with HTTPS, but the support needs to improve
I have experience with the solution's setup in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and our company has assisted in the development of a cluster in a research department, but we didn't start from scratch because we have IT professionals who have installed Kubernetes across 12 nodes of a cluster and a new environment can be created for a new platform. I also had another setup experience of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes in Portugal where I had to implement the solution in a cluster of 22 computer servers, which was completed with assistance from the IT department of the company. The initial setup process of the solution can be considered as difficult. The setup process involves using the permissions, subnets and range of IPs, which makes it complex. Deploying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes takes around eight to ten hours for new clusters. The solution's deployment can be divided into three parts. The first part involves OpenStack, where the cluster's resources need to be identified. The second part involves virtualizing assets and identifying other physical assets, for which OpenStack, Kubernetes, or OpenShift are used. The third part of the deployment involves dividing the networks into subnetworks and implementing automation to deploy the microservices using Helm. The number of professionals required for the solution's deployment depends upon the presence of automated scripts. Ideally, two or three professionals are required to set up Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner, and sometimes it can find more vulnerabilities that another scanner can’t."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"The platform is stable."
"Netsparker has done an awesome job with its crawler, as it has found all of the links (also thanks to its good DOM parser)."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"The technical support is good."
"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
 

Cons

"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"I find that the scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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."
"Sometimes, it is slow; when we are running this application and browsing other applications concurrently, it makes other applications work slow."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"The tool's command line and configuration are hard for us to understand and make deployment complex. It should also include zero trust, access control features and database connectivity."
"They're trying to convert it to the platform as a source. They are moving in the direction of Cloud Foundry so it can be easier for a developer to deploy it."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"The solution's price could be better."
 

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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"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."
"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."
"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
"It's a costly solution"
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
885,311 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%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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 Business6
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise4
 

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...
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 ...
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...
What needs improvement with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
From an improvement perspective, I would like to create new policies in the tool, especially if it is deployed for the prevention part, but currently, we need to do it manually. I hear that Palo Al...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I use the solution in my company for vulnerability management, configuration management, compliance, safety handling, and everything else.
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
The tool's policy management supports our company's compliance efforts since any corporate entity or enterprise must follow specific regulations, which include periodic analysis and configuration r...
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
StackRox
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.