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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs Invicti 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

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)
Invicti
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (15th), API Security (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 23.3%, up 19.3% compared to last year.
Invicti, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 11.7% mindshare, up 10.5% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing23.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional31.5%
GitLab22.6%
Other22.599999999999994%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Invicti11.7%
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing17.7%
HCL AppScan14.0%
Other56.6%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"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."
"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."
"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."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"The platform is stable."
 

Cons

"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."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"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."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
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, ...
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
Netsparker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.