Invicti vs OWASP Zap comparison

Invicti and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.5, while OWASP is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 1.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.5% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Invicti

Read 31 Invicti reviews

3,424 Views
2,260 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,287 Views
6,704 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Invicti

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Invicti and OWASP Zap are key players in the web application security testing market. Invicti seems to have the upper hand due to its user-friendly automation and pricing model, while OWASP Zap stands strong with its feature richness.

Features: Invicti users benefit from advanced automation capabilities, scanning accuracy, and detailed vulnerability assessments. OWASP Zap offers strong customization, a powerful suite of features, and adaptability in security testing.

Room for Improvement: Invicti's reporting could be more intuitive and its data analysis more streamlined. OWASP Zap needs better integration with development workflows and improved alignment with modern development needs.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti offers straightforward deployment and responsive customer service, making it suitable for organizations of various sizes. OWASP Zap requires a more technical setup but benefits from strong community support.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti provides competitive pricing and clear ROI through efficient security assessments. OWASP Zap's open-source status offers cost advantages, though the time investment in mastering its features can be impactful.

To learn more, read our detailed Invicti vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

11th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Container Security (26th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.5%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OWASP Zap	3.5%
Invicti	1.5%
Other	95.0%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

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

Prasant Pokarnaa

Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies

Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed

OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

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

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

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

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

"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's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."

"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."

"Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment."

"Invicti has done a commendable job with respect to ROI, and with respect to being a cost-effective solution and one of the market leaders as an effective solution for SAST and DAST, Invicti has performed very well."

More Invicti pros

"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."

"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."

"The solution is scalable."

"Simple to use, good user interface."

"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

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

"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."

"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 solution needs to make a more specific report."

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

"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."

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

More Invicti cons

"Deployment is somewhat complicated."

"OWASP Zap could benefit from a noise cancellation feature like that of Burp Suite Professional, where AI helps reduce certain non-critical findings."

"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."

"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."

"Sometimes, we get some false positives."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is competitive in the security market."

"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."

"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."

"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 price should be 20% lower"

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

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

"This solution is open source and free."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"The tool is open-source."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

13%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing 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	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

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

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 ...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

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

HCL AppScan vs Invicti

Compared 3% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Pentest-Tools.com vs OWASP Zap

Compared 2% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Invicti

January 2026

Download Invicti product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

January 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Netsparker

No data available

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

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

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

Buyer's Guide

Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

February 2026

Free Report: Invicti vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Invicti vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Invicti vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.