Invicti vs Synopsys API Security Testing [EOL] comparison

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

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

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

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

"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."

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

"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."

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

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

"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 proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."

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

"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."

"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 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."

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

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

"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

"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."

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

"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 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."

"It is competitive in the security market."