We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Invicti 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."Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"We are able to create a report which shows the PCI DSS scoring and share it with the application teams. Then, they can correlate and see exactly what they need to fix, and why."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"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."
"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 scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"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."
Acunetix is ranked 17th in Application Security Tools with 26 reviews while Invicti is ranked 20th in Application Security Tools with 25 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Invicti is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". 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". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and SonarQube, whereas Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect. See our Acunetix vs. Invicti 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.
