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."It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"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."
"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 solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"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 I can scan the code without sending it to the Kiuwan cloud. I can do it locally on my device. When the local analyzer finishes, the results display on the dashboard in the cloud. It's essential for security purposes to be able to scan my code locally."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."
"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 scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"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 next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd 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, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Invicti vs. Kiuwan report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
