We performed a comparison between Invicti and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"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 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."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."
"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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 support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"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."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
Invicti is ranked 15th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 25 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Invicti is most compared with Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and HCL AppScan. See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
