Invicti vs Seeker Interactive comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the API Security category. Invicti is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.7, while Black Duck is ranked #24. Invicti holds a 2.7% mindshare in APIS, compared to Black Duck’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 30 Invicti reviews

2,834 Views
142 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Seeker Interactive

Read 1 Seeker Interactive review

736 Views
74 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Invicti

Seeker Interactive

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

Invicti and Seeker Interactive compete in the web application security space. Invicti holds an edge with its pricing advantages and ease of deployment, whereas Seeker Interactive stands out with its advanced feature set justifying its higher cost.

Features: Invicti offers automated scanning, streamlined security testing, and integration capabilities to enhance workflow efficiency. Seeker Interactive provides in-depth analysis tools, real-time security testing, and a comprehensive approach to application security.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti is recognized for its easy deployment and strong customer service, ideal for quick implementation. Seeker Interactive, despite a steeper learning curve due to detailed features, provides strong support options to assist with integration.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti is cost-effective, providing competitive pricing that supports a quicker ROI. Seeker Interactive, with a higher initial investment, offers long-term value through its advanced security features. Invicti is more affordable, while Seeker Interactive presents substantial ROI over time.

To learn more, read our detailed API Security Report (Updated: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

API Security

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,445 peers since 2012

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

7th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (14th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th)

Seeker Interactive

Ranking in API Security

24th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Internet Security (18th), Mobile Threat Defense (16th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Invicti is 2.7%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Seeker Interactive is 0.9%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Security Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Invicti	2.7%
Seeker	0.9%
Other	96.4%

API Security

Featured Reviews

Kunal M

Capability Center Leader, ETRM Platforms at Shell

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.

Read full review

San K

Senior Group Leader at Infosys

More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities

One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need. The purposes for which applications are designed may differ in practice in the industry, and because of this, there will always be tools that sometimes report false positives. Thus, there should be some means with which I can customize the way that Seeker learns about our applications, possibly by using some kind of AI / ML capability within the tool that will automatically reduce the number of false positives that we get as we use the tool over time. Obviously, when we first start using the scanning tool there will be false positives, but as it keeps going and as I keep using the tool, there should be a period of time where either the application can learn how to ignore false positives, or I can customize it do so. Adding this type of functionality would definitely prevent future issues when it comes to reporting false positives, and this is a key area that we have already asked the vendor to improve on, in general. On a different note, there is one feature that isn't completely available right now where you can integrate Seeker with an open-source vulnerability scanner or composition analysis tool such as Black Duck. I would very much like this capability to be available to us out-of-the-box, so that we can easily integrate with tools like Black Duck in such a way that any open source components that are used in the front-end are easily identified. I think this would be a huge plus for Seeker. Another feature within Seeker which could benefit from improvement is active verification, which lets you actively verify a vulnerability. This feature currently doesn't work in certain applications, particularly in scenarios where you have requested tokens. When we bought the tool, we didn't realize this and we were not told about it by the vendor, so initially it was a big challenge for us to overcome it and properly begin our deployment.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."

"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."

"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."

"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."

"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."

"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."

"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."

More Invicti pros

"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."

Cons

"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."

"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."

"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."

"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."

"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."

"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."

"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"

"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."

More Invicti cons

"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."

"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 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."

"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"

"It is competitive in the security market."

"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."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

21%

Government

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	13
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

No data available

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.

See all answers

What do you like most about Invicti?

The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.

See all answers

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, ...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 19% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Invicti

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Contrast Security Assess vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 43% of the time

Coverity Static vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 38% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 19% of the time

More Seeker Interactive Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

September 2025

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

Internet Security

August 2025

Download Seeker Interactive product report

Also Known As

Netsparker

No data available

Overview

Invicti helps DevSecOps teams automate security tasks and save hundreds of hours each month by identifying web vulnerabilities that matter. Combining dynamic with interactive testing (DAST + IAST) and software composition analysis (SCA), Invicti scans every corner of an app to find what other tools miss with 99.98% accuracy, delivering on the promise of Zero Noise AppSec. Invicti helps discover all web assets — even ones that are lost, forgotten, or created by rogue departments. With an array of out-of-the-box integrations, DevSecOps teams can get ahead of their workloads to hit critical deadlines, improve processes, and communicate more effectively while reducing risk and hitting the ROI goals.

Invicti

Seeker®, interactive application security testing (IAST) solution, gives you unparalleled visibility into your modern web, cloud based and microservices based app security posture. It automatically verifies, prioritizes and reports on critical vulnerabilities in real time. It identifies vulnerability trends against compliance standards (e.g., OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, GDPR, CAPEC, and CWE/SANS Top 25). Seeker enables security teams to identify and track sensitive data to ensure that it is handled securely and not stored in log files or databases with weak or no encryption. Seeker’s seamless integration into CI/CD workflows enables fast interactive application security testing at DevOps speed.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank

El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone

Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai, Salt Security, Checkmarx and others in API Security. Updated: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best API Security vendors.

We monitor all API Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.