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

Invicti vs Kiuwan 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

Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
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), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)
Kiuwan
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
26th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.0%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Invicti1.5%
Kiuwan1.0%
Other97.5%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Mustufa Bhavnagarwala - PeerSpot reviewer
CyberRisk Solution Advisor at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement
Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment."
"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."
"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"​We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
 

Cons

"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."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"They need to improve their support in the documentation. Their support mechanism is missing. Their responsiveness, technical staff, and these types of things need to be improved, and comprehensive documentation is required. They should have good self-service portal enhancement"
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"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."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"Check with your account manager."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
11%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Netsparker
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Kiuwan and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.