Acunetix vs Invicti comparison

Read 29 Invicti reviews

2,995 Views
2,276 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Acunetix and Invicti compete in web application security testing. Invicti is considered superior due to its more comprehensive feature set.

Features: Acunetix offers impressive automation capabilities, rapid scan speed, and extensive vulnerability coverage. Invicti provides exceptional accuracy, seamless integration capabilities, and advanced scanning features, giving it a competitive edge with enhanced security testing precision and features.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix users seek better error handling, improved report customization, and additional technical advancements. Invicti users desire faster scan times, interface updates, and performance improvements.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix is easy to install and complemented by responsive customer service. Invicti is recognized for straightforward deployment and proactive support, providing a remarkable customer service experience.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix is seen as cost-effective with satisfactory ROI, appealing to budget-conscious users. Invicti is pricier but justifies the cost through its robust feature set, delivering higher ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Invicti Report (Updated: July 2025).

Acunetix vs. Invicti

Download the complete report

Helped 861,524 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

Acunetix

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

13th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (22nd), DevSecOps (6th)

Invicti

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

14th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

API Security (6th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.5%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

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

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."

"The product is really easy to use."

"The features of Acunetix have proved most effective in identifying vulnerabilities."

"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."

"It generates automated reports."

More Acunetix pros

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

"The platform is stable."

"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."

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

"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."

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

"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."

More Invicti pros

Cons

"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."

"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."

"Acunetix should improve by further reducing false positives and providing more customized reports, plus better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps."

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."

"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."

"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."

More Acunetix cons

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."

"The solution needs to make a more specific report."

"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."

"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."

More Invicti cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

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

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."

"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."

"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."

"The price should be 20% lower"

"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."

"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."

More Invicti 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

861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

16%

Educational Organization

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

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...

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 16% of the time

Compared 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

Tenable.io Web Application Scanning vs Acunetix

Compared 6% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

OWASP Zap vs Invicti

Compared 11% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

Snyk vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Product Reports

Acunetix

Download Acunetix product report

Download Invicti product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Netsparker

Overview

Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

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.

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

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

Acunetix vs. Invicti