Invicti vs Synopsys API Security Testing [EOL] comparison

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

"Invicti has done a commendable job with respect to ROI, and with respect to being a cost-effective solution and one of the market leaders as an effective solution for SAST and DAST, Invicti has performed very well."

"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."

"The platform is stable."

"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."

"I am impressed with Invictus’ proof-based scanning. The solution has reduced the incidence of false positive vulnerabilities. It has helped us reduce our time and focus on vulnerabilities."

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

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

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

"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."

"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."

"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."

"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."

"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."

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

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

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

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

"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."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"The price should be 20% lower"

"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."

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."

"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."

"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."