We performed a comparison between Invicti and Kiuwan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"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."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"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 needs to make a more specific report."
"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."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 21st in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Snyk and Fortify on Demand. See our Invicti vs. Kiuwan report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
