We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Invicti based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is scalable and very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"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."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"A localized version, for example, in Korean would be a big improvement to this solution."
"The scanner could be better."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"Reporting should be improved. The reporting options should be made better for end-users. Currently, it is possible, but it's not the best. Being able to choose what I want to see in my reports rather than being given prefixed information would make my life easier. I had to depend on the API for getting the content that I wanted. If they could fix the reporting feature to make it more comprehensive and user-friendly, it would help a lot of end-users. Everything else was good about this product."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"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."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and GitLab, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Rapid7 AppSpider. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Invicti report.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.