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

Invicti vs OWASP Zap 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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
API Security (10th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th)
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.5%, up from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OWASP Zap4.5%
Invicti1.5%
Other94.0%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support
There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"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."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"The interface is easy to use."
"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."
 

Cons

"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"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."
"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."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"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."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price should be 20% lower"
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"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."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"The tool is open source."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"The tool is open-source."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

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, ...
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about OWASP Zap?
The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?
OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.