Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Invicti vs Synopsys Defensics 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
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (14th), API Security (6th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th)
Synopsys Defensics
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Invicti is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 13.5%, down 14.5% compared to last year.
Synopsys Defensics, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 23.1% mindshare, up 14.9% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
SK
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
 

Cons

"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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"
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"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"
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"Licensing is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
36%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
What needs improvement with Invicti?
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 vulnerab...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Find out what your peers are saying about HCLSoftware , Rapid7, OpenText and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: May 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.