We performed a comparison between Invicti and Veracode 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."This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"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."
"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."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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 source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"Wide range of platforms and technology assessments."
"The pricing is worth it."
"They also have what's called a Software Composition Analysis that can point out errors and fixes for third-party software frameworks, which is very nice."
"I don't have to have a team of developers behind me that keep up with all the latest threats because the subscription service they provide for me does that."
"Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools."
"It provides security of different Shadow IT activities in our environment, especially around application development and website hosting."
"I like Veracode's static scanning and SCA. We use three static scans, software composition analysis, and dynamic scans. We haven't used dynamic scanning as much, but we're trying to integrate that into our environment more."
"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."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"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."
"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."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"It will be beneficial for developers if Veracode Greenlight includes Python."
"The scanning process for records could be faster and there is room for improvement in Veracode's performance."
"Veracode can improve the price model and how they bill the final offer to customers. It's based on the amount of traffic. For example, you can buy 1 gigabyte distributed across various applications, and each one can consume part of the whole allotment of traffic data."
"The product has issues with scanning."
"There are few languages that take time for scanning. It covers the majority of languages from C to Scala, but it doesn't support certain languages and the newer versions of certain languages. For example, it doesn't support SAP and new JavaScript frameworks such as Node.js and React JS. They can include support for these. If you go to their website, you can see the list of languages that are currently supported. The false-positive rates are also something they can work on."
"From the usability perspective, it is not up to date with the latest trends. It looks very old. Tools such as Datadog, New Relic, or infrastructure security tools, such as AWS Cloud, seem very user-friendly. They are completely web-based, and you can navigate through them pretty quickly, whereas Veracode is very rigid. It is like an old-school enterprise application. It does the job, but they need to invest a little more on the usability front."
"Another thing I need is continued support for the new languages today that are popular. Most of them are scripting languages more so than real, fourth-generation, commercial grade stuff; we're evolving. Most applications are using so much open-source that, quite frankly, it would be great to see Veracode, or anybody else, extend their platform to where they are able to help secure open-source platforms or repositories."
"The false positive rates were quite high in our case."
Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Invicti is rated 8.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. 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 Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Invicti vs. Veracode 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.
