Invicti vs Synopsys API Security Testing comparison

"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."

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

"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."

"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."

"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."

"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."

"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

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

"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."

"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 solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."

"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."

"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"

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

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

"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

"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."

"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 should be 20% lower"

"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."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"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."

"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."