Invicti vs OWASP Zap comparison

Invicti and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.5, while OWASP is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 1.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 31 Invicti reviews

3,137 Views
2,165 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,310 Views
6,725 Comparison Views

88% 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: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,425 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)

11th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Container Security (25th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 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 OWASP Zap is 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OWASP Zap	3.9%
Invicti	1.5%
Other	94.6%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Valavan Sivgalingam

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.

Read full review

Prasant Pokarnaa

Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies

Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed

OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

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

"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."

"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."

"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."

"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."

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

"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."

"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."

"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."

More Invicti pros

"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."

"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."

"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."

"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."

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

"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."

"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."

"Reporting should be improved. The reporting options should be made better for end-users. Currently, it is possible, but it's not the best. Being able to choose what I want to see in my reports rather than being given prefixed information would make my life easier. I had to depend on the API for getting the content that I wanted. If they could fix the reporting feature to make it more comprehensive and user-friendly, it would help a lot of end-users. Everything else was good about this product."

"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."

More Invicti cons

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

"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."

"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

"The price should be 20% lower"

"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."

"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."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

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

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"The tool is open source."

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

"The tool is open-source."

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

879,425 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

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 needs improvement with Invicti?

The main 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, ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Invicti?

I use Invicti for web application testing and API testing. I want to confirm that I am still using Invicti and SonarQube.

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 17% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 18% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs OWASP Zap

Compared 2% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

December 2025

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

December 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

December 2025

Free Report: Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,425 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.