Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Acunetix vs Invicti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th), Vulnerability Management (17th), DevSecOps (5th)
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.3%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

AnubhavGoswami - PeerSpot reviewer
Attractive automated reports with boost user productivity and an easy setup
The primary use is mainly related to vulnerability assessment, including both public and internal IP addresses By using this tool, we have reduced the workload and increased the productivity of users. It generates automated reports. This feature is beneficial when sharing reports with clients as…
Amr Abdelnaser - PeerSpot reviewer
A safe solution used to detective vulnerabilities for dynamic and complex testing
The Invicti is the scope application tool. The solution is installed on-premise but could be installed as a web version. Starting from the latest version, the web version could be used. They have a web application server. The deployment of the solution involves installing the EXE and configuring your machine.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"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 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 scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
 

Cons

"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that 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."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."
"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."
"The price is exceptionally high."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"The solution is expensive."
"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
55%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I use Acunetix for penetration testing purposes. This is the primary use case.
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I rate the overall solution nine out of ten. I prefer Acunetix for its more precise and accurate results.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
What needs improvement with Invicti?
Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
Netsparker
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.