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

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)
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (10th), API Security (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (8th)
Kiuwan
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
28th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (32nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.0%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Invicti1.8%
Kiuwan1.0%
Other97.2%
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 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."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"It has improved the security of our code by scanning it and finding security defects."
"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."
"Technical support is very professional, 10/10."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"Saving time and money by automatically identifying problems is unbelievable."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the continuous integration process, which enables us to make the best in terms of security of our solution and not introduce new mistakes, with problems solved step by step."
"I advise using Kiuwan because it's very straightforward and totally easy to understand."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"​We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"We have been using this solution for one and a half years."
 

Cons

"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."
"I find that the scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"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."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"It is a good tool, as we found out with the Community Edition trial, but the price point is quite expensive for a startup or average-sized company."
"Maybe supported clients can be improved. It still does not search vulnerabilities in DB2 databases, for example."
"More languages and frameworks would enhance this tool."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"Check with your account manager."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
904,748 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
Construction Company
12%
University
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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: June 2026.
904,748 professionals have used our research since 2012.