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

Invicti vs Salt Security 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 API Security
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th), Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (8th)
Salt Security
Ranking in API Security
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
AI Security (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Invicti is 3.9%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Salt Security is 6.9%, down from 12.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Salt Security6.9%
Invicti3.9%
Other89.2%
API 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.
Tbaker Baker - PeerSpot reviewer
Risk Advisory Senior Manager at a marketing services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Behavioral AI has protected critical applications and now blocks complex external attacks
I think Salt Security could improve their implementations. The one that I saw was very complex and took quite a bit of time, and if the environment is unique at all, it takes quite a bit of time to figure out how to properly ensure that it will be implemented. A lot of times there is a steep learning curve for someone that hasn't been in it to figure out the APIs and really dig deep into it, but once you get used to it, it is easy. However, that ramp-up period could be tough. I think Salt Security could use a more enterprise focus. Some of the smaller companies that I have referred them to think it is a little bit too complex for them, so if they could come up with a different version or something a little bit easier to simplify their platform, they may be able to find more customers that way.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"I'd recommend Netsparker for anyone who wants to make a security assessment for web applications."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"It has improved the security of our code by scanning it and finding security defects."
"NetSparker is a very easy to use and understand product."
"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."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"Salt Security gives you visibility of all your APIs, identifies API security issues, and immediately alerts you of attacks."
"Salt Security has positively impacted my organization and my client's organization by being able to stop cyberattacks and ensure that they have proper security over all their applications, giving them a sense of peace of mind that they have security over something that could ultimately take down the whole company if not mitigated properly."
"Salt Security gave me much better visibility into API risk, helping me identify exposed endpoints, misconfigured APIs, and sensitive data flowing through APIs that required additional controls, and it has become an important part of my API security program."
"It's really great. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. I haven't encountered any instability issues."
 

Cons

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"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."
"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 vulnerability remediation over time."
"I find that the scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"Regarding scalability, for users in smaller environments, it is not exactly the best."
"The integration part could be a bit extended."
"The setup cost was acceptable, but adding additional APIs was actually quite expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"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"
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Construction Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Salt Security?
The setup cost was acceptable, but adding additional APIs was actually quite expensive.
What needs improvement with Salt Security?
Alert tuning can require some time depending on API volume. Some findings need internal validation before actioning. The collaboration flows between security and engineering teams could be expanded...
What is your primary use case for Salt Security?
I use Salt Security primarily for API discovery, mainly regarding data-sensitive information across the company. Before using Salt Security for API discovery and sensitive information, I didn't hav...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Netsparker
Salt Security API Protection Platform
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Appsflyer, Armis, City National Bank, Coralogix, Finastra, Gett, Honeybook, Payoneer
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Salt Security and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.