No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Invicti vs Mend.io 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 Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th), Container Security (25th), API Security (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (9th)
Mend.io
Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Static Code Analysis (4th), Software Supply Chain Security (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Software Composition Analysis (SCA) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.8%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mend.io is 4.4%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Mend.io4.4%
Invicti1.8%
Other93.8%
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
 

Featured Reviews

PrashantUppuluri - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Automated scanning has strengthened web application security and supports hybrid protection
A good scanning engine is what I appreciate about Invicti. When you want to find out the vulnerabilities within your web applications, Invicti has done a thorough job with respect to filtering out the vulnerabilities and identifying the risk factors with respect to the security modules within the solution. Invicti does have a segment of the solution which works on the automated scanning engine. As long as the license is active, the scanners that work within the solution are pretty effective. With respect to SAST and DAST, being a real-time scanning engine is one of the portfolios and one of the selling factors of the solution. Invicti is known to be a solution that works within the hybrid environment, be it cloud, on-premises, or a mix and match across multiple marketplaces. It does a thorough job. Most importantly, Invicti is a very good SAST and DAST solution that is very competitive in the market with respect to competitors. Invicti is a part of the Magic Quadrant with respect to Gartner's Magic Quadrant and has made a very good customer database and pipeline within the marketplace locally. With respect to security impacts in terms of support, Invicti is pretty much supportive. With respect to use cases or the POCs I have run on the solution, we have identified a couple of vulnerabilities and Invicti was able to trace them, detect, and quarantine the attacks.
meetharoon - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Centralized security monitoring has reduced false positives and improves dependency governance
The only area for improvement I would say is that the false positives are nearly zero; everything is mostly like 99 to 99.99% or we can say 100% accurate. There were a few areas for improvement just from the last time I saw; I think the user experience had a little problem. We wanted to have certain reports based on our kind of scenario, but the tool did not allow us to create custom reports. We had asked for some facility and some ability for us to create some custom reports. That would be awesome if they allow us to create custom reports the way we wanted. There is one small area which I don't know whether we should call a tool limitation or a wish list; if I use a library and I don't use all the capabilities of the library but only a portion of it and that portion is not vulnerable, but there is a component which is outdated, that is a problem, even though I don't use that component. Mend.io will discover there is a problem in the whole library; that is correct. That's a valid discovery, but in my case, for example, if I don't use that particular portion, then it actually is not making sense for me, but that's not a limitation of Mend.io; I think that's a general problem with any tool in the market because no tool in the market will actually know what portion of the code I'm actually using from that particular library if it is vulnerable or not.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has improved the security of our code by scanning it and finding security defects."
"I'd recommend Netsparker for anyone who wants to make a security assessment for web applications."
"Technical support is very professional, 10/10."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"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."
"Netsparker has done an awesome job with its crawler, as it has found all of the links (also thanks to its good DOM parser)."
"The policy automation on effective vulnerabilities feature had a major impact on how we address open source vulnerabilities since it focuses on effective vulnerabilities and directs you to the specific methods."
"The peace of mind we have now is a total game-changer."
"The best feature is that the Mend R&D team does their due diligence for all the vulnerabilities. In case they observe any important or critical vulnerabilities, such as the Log4j-related vulnerability, we usually get a dedicated email from our R&D team saying that this particular vulnerability has been exploited in the world, and we should definitely check our project for this and take corrective actions."
"WhiteSource is unique in the scanning of open-source licenses. Additionally, the vulnerabilities aspect of the solution is a benefit. We don't use WhiteSource in the whole organization, but we use it for some projects. There we receive a sense of the vulnerabilities of the open-source components, which improves our security work. The reports are automated which is useful."
"Mend has reduced our open-source software vulnerabilities and helped us remediate issues quickly. My company's policy is to ensure that vulnerabilities are fixed before it gets to production."
"It saves a lot of money with early fixing."
"Overall, Mend (formerly WhiteSource) helped dramatically reduce the number of open-source software vulnerabilities running in our production at any given point in time."
"We can take some measures to improve things, replace a library, or update a library which was too old or showed severe bugs."
 

Cons

"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
"It is a good tool, as we found out with the Community Edition trial, but the price point is quite expensive for a startup or average-sized company."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization."
"The scan performance can be improved upon."
"Maybe supported clients can be improved. It still does not search vulnerabilities in DB2 databases, for example."
"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 tools need to bring down the pricing because software in SaaS or on-prem is becoming a more expensive affair."
"We specifically use this solution within our CICD pipelines in Azure DevOps, and we would like to have a gate so that if the score falls below a certain value then we can block the pipeline from running."
"The main consideration is the cost. The products always have their maturity."
"The UI can be slow once in a while, and we're not sure if it's because of the amount of data we have, or it is just a slow product, but it would be nice if it could be improved."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"We wanted to have certain reports based on our kind of scenario, but the tool did not allow us to create custom reports."
"Mend supports most of the common package managers, but it doesn't support some that we use. I would appreciate it if they can quickly make these changes to add new package managers when necessary."
"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is competitive in the security market."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"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 solution involves a yearly licensing fee."
"Mend is costly but not overly expensive. The license was quite expensive this year, but we managed to negotiate the price down to the same as last year. At the same time, it's a good value. We're getting what we're paying for and still not using all the features. We could probably get more out of the tool and make it more valuable. At the moment, we don't have the capacity to do that."
"As we were using an SaaS-based service, the solution must be scalable, although my understanding is that this is based on the licensing model one is using."
"We always negotiate for the best price possible, and as far as I know, Mend has done an excellent job with their pricing. Our management is happy with the pricing, which has led to renewals."
"This is an expensive solution."
"It is fairly priced."
"The version that we are using, WhiteSource Bolt, is a free integration with Azure DevOps."
"We are paying a lot of money to use WhiteSource. In our company, it is not easy to argue that it is worth the price. ​"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise22
 

Questions from the Community

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...
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 ...
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...
How does WhiteSource compare with SonarQube?
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...
How does WhiteSource compare with Black Duck?
We researched Black Duck but ultimately chose WhiteSource when looking for an application security tool. WhiteSource is a software solution that enables agile open source security and license compl...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mend.io?
Mend.io SCA offers a competitive pricing structure that is relatively affordable compared to similar solutions in the market. This makes it an attractive option for organizations looking to enhance...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Netsparker
WhiteSource, Mend SCA, Mend.io Supply Chain Defender, Mend SAST
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Microsoft, Autodesk, NCR, Target, IBM, vodafone, Siemens, GE digital, KPMG, LivePerson, Jack Henry and Associates
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. Mend.io and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.