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

Invicti vs Rapid7 AppSpider 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)
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
Rapid7 AppSpider
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
27th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 AppSpider is 0.5%, down from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Andrei Bigdan - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation
I have had some stability problems but it could be the Microsoft Windows operating system. I found that closing other applications helps with stability. It is helpful to have as much memory as possible, such as eight gigabytes. The more pages being processed the more resources you need. I rate the stability of Rapid7 AppSpider a nine out of ten.

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 feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."
"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 is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"The solution is highly stable, rated at ten out of ten."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"The entire solution is interactive and has a point-and-click user experience, which makes it easy to find items or drill down on information. You don't need specialized skills to use the product."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"The most valuable feature of Rapid7 AppSpider is the vulnerability reporting data. Additionally, the data is reported in a convenient way rather than seeing them as a PDF. We are able to generate all the reports exactly what we want in a flexible way."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
 

Cons

"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 support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"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."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"For Japanese customers, localization is needed. The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"Integration could be better."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"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."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"It is expensive if you want to buy the Enterprise version that is able to scan multiple applications at once."
"The licensing cost depends on the number of users."
"The price is pretty fair."
"The price of Rapid7 AppSpider cost 9,000 annually but there is limited usage. Large companies are able to negotiate a better price or a better deal for the usage with the vendor."
"AppSpider is closed-source software and you need to acquire a license in order to use it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
49%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
14%
Healthcare Company
8%
Government
8%
 

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.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
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...
What do you like most about Rapid7 AppSpider?
The most valuable feature of Rapid7 AppSpider is the vulnerability reporting data. Additionally, the data is reported in a convenient way rather than seeing them as a PDF. We are able to generate a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Rapid7 AppSpider?
The price is not high, but for Japanese customers, localization may incur additional costs.
What needs improvement with Rapid7 AppSpider?
For Japanese customers, localization is needed. The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users.
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
AppSpider
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Microsoft
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Rapid7 AppSpider and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.