Invicti vs Synopsys API Security Testing [EOL] comparison

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

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

"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."

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

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

"Reporting should be improved. The reporting options should be made better for end-users. Currently, it is possible, but it's not the best. Being able to choose what I want to see in my reports rather than being given prefixed information would make my life easier. I had to depend on the API for getting the content that I wanted. If they could fix the reporting feature to make it more comprehensive and user-friendly, it would help a lot of end-users. Everything else was good about this product."

"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."

"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."

"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."

"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."

"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 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 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."

"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."

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."

"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 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."