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

Invicti vs Synopsys Defensics comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (15th), API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
Synopsys Defensics
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Invicti is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 13.4%, down 14.5% compared to last year.
Synopsys Defensics, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 23.1% mindshare, up 12.1% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

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.
it_user508521 - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps us complete testing more quickly by eliminating many unwanted test cases
Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application, and from that we can generate automated test cases, but what happens on the target device, what is the reason for the crash, for that we have to do manual debugging. They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful. They can improve a lot on that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"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."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
 

Cons

"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"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."
"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 vulnerability remediation over time."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"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."
"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 never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"Licensing is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
48%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
22%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Netsparker
Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Find out what your peers are saying about HCLSoftware , OpenText, Invicti and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.