Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

Invicti and OpenText are both solutions in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category. Invicti is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.5, while OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 7.8% mindshare in DAST, compared to OpenText’s 11.0% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 31 Invicti reviews

3,424 Views
753 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,095 Views
1,145 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Invicti

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Invicti and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing are key players in application security. Invicti has an edge in ease of use and setup, whereas OpenText excels in integrations and vulnerability identification.

Features: Invicti offers automated scanning, intuitive reporting, and seamless integration. OpenText includes thorough vulnerability scans, diverse tech stack support, and comprehensive analysis capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Invicti could enhance its integration scope, reduce scan times, and improve network load management. OpenText might refine the deployment process, optimize system resource usage, and streamline user interface navigation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti ensures quick deployment and effective support. OpenText provides extensive service and adaptability, albeit with a more complex deployment process.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti's lower setup costs and efficient ROI appeal to budget-conscious consumers. Despite higher costs, OpenText is valued for its broad feature set and application security effectiveness.

To learn more, read our detailed Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,707 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

Invicti

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (11th), Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

3rd

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

DevSecOps (9th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 7.8%, up from 5.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 11.0%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.0%
Invicti	7.8%
Other	81.2%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Featured Reviews

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

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

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

"Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios."

"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."

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

"The scanner and the result generator are valuable features for us."

"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."

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

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

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

More Invicti pros

"Technical support has been good."

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

"It is easy to use, and its reporting is fairly simple."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

"When we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities. Comparison is easy in SSC."

"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."

"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."

"The custom attack preparation screen might 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."

"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 solution's false positive analysis and vulnerability analysis libraries could be improved."

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

"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."

More Invicti cons

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."

"The scanner could be better."

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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"

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"The price is okay."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"This solution is very expensive."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

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...

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

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 13% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

Snyk vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 22% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Contrast Security Assess vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

January 2026

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

January 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

Netsparker

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

December 2025

Free Report: Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Invicti vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

See our list of best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) vendors.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.