Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs Invicti comparison

The compared Black Duck and Invicti solutions aren't in the same category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in FTT , and holds a 19.8% mindshare in the category. Invicti is ranked #5 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.5, and holds a 7.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Invicti users who would recommend it.

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Read 4 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing reviews

1,077 Views
118 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Invicti

Read 31 Invicti reviews

3,137 Views
690 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Invicti

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

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)

Invicti

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th), Container Security (25th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (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 19.8%, down 20.3% compared to last year.
Invicti, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 7.9% mindshare, up 5.3% since last year.

Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing	19.8%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	31.4%
GitLab	23.3%
Other	25.5%

Fuzz Testing Tools

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Invicti	7.9%
Veracode	19.4%
Checkmarx One	17.2%
Other	55.5%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Featured Reviews

Sarath Kumar Choday

Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies

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.

Read full review

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

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."

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

"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."

"I like that it's stable and technical support is great."

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

"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."

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

"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."

More Invicti pros

Cons

"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."

"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 would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."

"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."

"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 need to improve their support in the documentation. Their support mechanism is missing. Their responsiveness, technical staff, and these types of things need to be improved, and comprehensive documentation is required. They should have good self-service portal enhancement"

"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."

"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."

"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."

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

More Invicti cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

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

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."

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

"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."

"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."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"The price should be 20% lower"

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?

The setup cost is pretty competitive. For example, if you want to talk about the SAST license, it comes to about $150 or sometimes less than $100, depending on the conversion or the number of licen...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Invicti?

At this time, there is nothing that comes to mind. However, most of the products in the market are pretty much neck-to-neck competitors. Speaking about it, there are a couple of factors which they ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Invicti?

I have worked on a couple of products, specifically in web application security. I have worked on Invicti, and with respect to PAM, I have worked with BeyondTrust. I have not worked specifically fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 14% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 12% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 11% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 6% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 16% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. GitLab

January 2026

Download Defensics Protocol Fuzzing product report

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

January 2026

Download Invicti product report

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics

Netsparker

Overview

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

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

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

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

We monitor all Fuzz Testing Tools 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.