No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

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 (19th)
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
10th
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 (24th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 9.0%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 8.8%, up from 6.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Invicti8.8%
HCL AppScan9.0%
Other82.2%
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

"It's a good product; its automated crawler identifies all URLs and performs security tests, and it has very rich test cases which ensure pretty good coverage in terms of security testing while the UI is user friendly and intuitive."
"It was easy to set up."
"There's extensive functionality with custom rules and a custom knowledge base."
"It has certainly improved our organization in terms of quality of solutions that are developed."
"Technical support is helpful."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"AppScan's most valuable features include its ability to identify vulnerabilities accurately, provide detailed remediation steps, and the newly introduced AI-powered features that enhance its functionality further."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable features that I've found in this solution was the level of accuracy and also that the process of scanning was very quick and we're easily able to change the frame of a scan."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"Technical support is very professional, 10/10."
"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"Invicti has done a commendable job with respect to ROI, and with respect to being a cost-effective solution and one of the market leaders as an effective solution for SAST and DAST, Invicti has performed very well."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"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."
 

Cons

"The performance could be better. Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"​IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use​."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"It has crashed at times."
"We would like to see a check in the specific vulnerabilities in mobile applications or rooted devices, such as jailbreaking devices."
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"The depth was low, but the part that the user could miss was also diagnosed."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization."
"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."
"Sometimes, it is slow; when we are running this application and browsing other applications concurrently, it makes other applications work slow."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement. We need enterprise-level information instead of repo-level details. Unlike Appiro, Invicti does not provide portfolio-level insights into vulnerability remediation over time."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"Pricing was the main reason that we went ahead with this solution as they were the lowest in the market."
"The price is very expensive."
"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."
"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."
"The tool was expensive."
"The solution is cheap."
"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."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is competitive in the security market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
886,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
7%
 

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...
 

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: April 2026.
886,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.