Invicti vs OWASP Zap comparison

Invicti and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.8, while OWASP is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.5. Invicti holds a 1.4% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 5.0% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 29 Invicti reviews

2,816 Views
1,510 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 39 OWASP Zap reviews

11,947 Views
6,382 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Invicti

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Invicti and OWASP Zap are key players in the web application security testing market. Invicti seems to have the upper hand due to its user-friendly automation and pricing model, while OWASP Zap stands strong with its feature richness.

Features: Invicti users benefit from advanced automation capabilities, scanning accuracy, and detailed vulnerability assessments. OWASP Zap offers strong customization, a powerful suite of features, and adaptability in security testing.

Room for Improvement: Invicti's reporting could be more intuitive and its data analysis more streamlined. OWASP Zap needs better integration with development workflows and improved alignment with modern development needs.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti offers straightforward deployment and responsive customer service, making it suitable for organizations of various sizes. OWASP Zap requires a more technical setup but benefits from strong community support.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti provides competitive pricing and clear ROI through efficient security assessments. OWASP Zap's open-source status offers cost advantages, though the time investment in mastering its features can be impactful.

To learn more, read our detailed Invicti vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,194 peers since 2012

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)

15th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

8th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 5.0%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Kunal M

Capability Center Leader, ETRM Platforms at Shell

Proactive scanning measures and realistic audit recommendations enhance development focus

Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment. This feature helps us focus on priorities and prioritize the development team's effort, integrating seamlessly with DevOps to facilitate proactive scans of environments. Invicti also provides audit recommendations that are quite realistic, making it easy to discuss plans with developers.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."

"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."

"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."

"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."

"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."

"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."

"Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment."

"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."

More Invicti pros

"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."

"The solution is scalable."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The interface is easy to use."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"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"

"The solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."

"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

"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 custom attack preparation screen might be improved."

More Invicti cons

"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."

"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"It needs more robust reporting tools."

"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."

"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 price should be 20% lower"

"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."

"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."

"It is competitive in the security market."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"The tool is open source."

"The tool is open-source."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

842,194 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

52%

Financial Services Firm

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?

As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.

See all answers

What do you like most about Invicti?

The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Invicti?

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 vulnerab...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 18% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

Snyk vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 22% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs OWASP Zap

Compared 4% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

March 2025

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Netsparker

No data available

Overview

Invicti helps DevSecOps teams automate security tasks and save hundreds of hours each month by identifying web vulnerabilities that matter. Combining dynamic with interactive testing (DAST + IAST) and software composition analysis (SCA), Invicti scans every corner of an app to find what other tools miss with 99.98% accuracy, delivering on the promise of Zero Noise AppSec. Invicti helps discover all web assets — even ones that are lost, forgotten, or created by rogue departments. With an array of out-of-the-box integrations, DevSecOps teams can get ahead of their workloads to hit critical deadlines, improve processes, and communicate more effectively while reducing risk and hitting the ROI goals.

Invicti

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

March 2025

Free Report: Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,194 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.