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

HCL AppScan vs Invicti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

HCL AppScan
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
17th
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (20th)
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 9.6%, down from 11.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 7.8%, up from 5.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Invicti7.8%
HCL AppScan9.6%
Other82.6%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Ravi Khanchandani - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder Director at Techsa Services
Has improved identification of encryption and authentication issues across cloud and on-prem applications
During the learning curve of onboarding HCL AppScan, we learned that HCL has altered the portfolio and now offers HCL AppScan 360, which has a much better look and feel with an improved user interface. However, there is one feature called SCA, which stands for Software Composition Analysis, that could be improved. When I'm doing an application scan, HCL AppScan has the ability to generate information about what components are in use. For example, if I'm scanning a web application, it shows me the various components being used. It tells me whether I have Java libraries, .NET frameworks, or other log management libraries such as Log4j, and what versions of those specific components are present. I would like to see more detailed reports from the tool. Currently, you can find out the components belonging to a specific software, but if detailed reporting became available, you would be in a better position to identify vulnerabilities. For instance, I could identify that I had the Log4j vulnerability and know that I need to fix my application accordingly. If they add the features I'm describing, I would consider giving them a higher rating. However, I've only been experienced with the product for three months.
Valavan Sivgalingam - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager, Security Engineering at ESS
Dynamic testing regularly identifies web vulnerabilities and has strong false positive confirmations
It has good false positive confirmations, confirmed issues identification, and proof of exploit-related features as part of it. We use Invicti for these things in our portfolios. The solution includes Proof-Based Scanning technology. Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios. For both the API endpoints and web applications, we do regular testing on a monthly basis for all our releases. Invicti does a good job. The only concern is on the performance side, but other than that, we find it really helpful in identifying web vulnerabilities. A full scan takes more time based on your website and other factors, but for us, it takes more than two to three days. The scan performance can be improved upon. When we check with them, they discuss proof-based scanning and related aspects. However, there could be intermittent results that could help us.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the recording feature."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is easy to use."
"We leverage it as a quality check against code."
"It comes with all of the templates that we need. For example, we are a company that is regulated by PCI. In order to be PCI compliant, we have a lot of checks and procedures to which we have to comply."
"The product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing."
"The platform is stable."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
 

Cons

"The databases for HCL are small and have room for improvement."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"There is one feature called SCA, which stands for Software Composition Analysis, that could be improved."
"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
"I would love to see more containers. Many of the tools are great, they require an amount of configuration, setup and infrastructure. If most the applications were in a container, I think everything would be a little bit faster, because all our clients are now using containers."
"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheap."
"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."
"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"I would rate the product's pricing a nine out of ten. The product's pricing is expensive compared to the features that they offer."
"The solution is moderately priced."
"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."
"The price of HCL AppScan is okay, in my opinion. You just buy HCL AppScan and don't pay anything anymore, meaning it is just a one-time purchase."
"HCL AppScan is expensive."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"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."
"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."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about HCL AppScan?
The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase.
What needs improvement with HCL AppScan?
During the learning curve of onboarding HCL AppScan, we learned that HCL has altered the portfolio and now offers HCL AppScan 360, which has a much better look and feel with an improved user interf...
What is your primary use case for HCL AppScan?
I'm currently working with BigFix and HCL AppScan. At least three people in my company are using HCL AppScan. Since we are a reseller, we run it in both lab environments and live production applica...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
The setup cost is pretty competitive. For example, if you want to talk about the SAST license, it comes to about $150 or sometimes less than $100, depending on the conversion or the number of licen...
What needs improvement with Invicti?
At this time, there is nothing that comes to mind. However, most of the products in the market are pretty much neck-to-neck competitors. Speaking about it, there are a couple of factors which they ...
What is your primary use case for Invicti?
I have worked on a couple of products, specifically in web application security. I have worked on Invicti, and with respect to PAM, I have worked with BeyondTrust. I have not worked specifically fo...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan
Netsparker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.