"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"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."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty 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."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"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."
"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."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
Netsparker by Invicti is ranked 15th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 4 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 6th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews. Netsparker by Invicti is rated 7.8, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Netsparker by 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great at reporting vulnerabilities, helps with security, and reveals development threats well". Netsparker by Invicti is most compared with Acunetix by Invicti, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan and Rapid7 AppSpider, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Veracode, Acunetix by Invicti, Qualys Web Application Scanning and HCL AppScan. See our Netsparker by Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
