Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition
Invicti vs Acunetix
Seven of fourteen models named Invicti first on the direct prompt; four named Acunetix. Both were named by all fourteen models and Invicti carries 51 labels and Acunetix 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share33%13%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate12%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels5135A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Invicti reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.StackHawk was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Invicti vs OWASP ZAP · Invicti vs StackHawk · Invicti vs Bright Security
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the dynamic application security testing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
InvictiFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAcunetix
Direct741 against Invicti
Paraphrase93
Comparative43
Budget-constrained001 against Invicti · 1 against Acunetix
Scale-constrained201 against Invicti
Negative003 against Invicti · 1 against Acunetix
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Invicti and Acunetix were named in the same answer seventy times, of the 174 answers naming Invicti and the 104 naming Acunetix. In those answers Acunetix took the first choice six times and Invicti nineteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Invicti and Acunetix stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | |
Invicti Acunetix first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Invicti on the left and Acunetix on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Invicti and Acunetix stood in it.
Both were the first choice
1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.Mistral SmallAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Invicti first, Acunetix an alternative
6 of 14 modelsAcunetix was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, StackHawk
Perplexity SonarInvicti alternatives: Bright Security, Escape, StackHawk
Grok 4.20Invicti alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Probely, StackHawk
Llama 4 MaverickInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Qwen 3.7 FlashInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Apidog, Postman, Veracode DAST
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, StackHawk
Acunetix first, Invicti an alternative
3 of 14 modelsInvicti was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti
Gemini 3.5 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, Escape, Invicti
GLM 4.7 FlashXOWASP ZAP, Probely alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti, StackHawk
GPT-6 LunaStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, Invicti
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Acunetix leads by eight points.
Acunetix8%#4 of 13Invicti0%#11 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Invicti leads at mid-market.
Invicti33%#1 of 13Acunetix13%#3 of 13Enterprise
Invicti leads by fifty-eight points.
Invicti58%#1 of 14Acunetix0%#13 of 14What the models said about Invicti
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“it is advisable to avoid or proceed with extreme caution when using OWASP ZAP or Invicti in automated pipelines” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“One 2026 benchmark showed 23% false positive rate — the highest among tested tools (though it had other strengths)” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“some configurations of Invicti (formerly Acunetix in older forms; ~23% false positive rate in one test)” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Invicti leads on "proof-based scanning" — it actively exploits vulnerabilities to prove they are real, dramatically reducing false positives.” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Invicti (formerly Netsparker) — Strong on accuracy/proof-based scanning; good for enterprises moving to fewer false positives.” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · first choice
“the tool most frequently cited as the "best all-around" choice for a mid-size B2B company is Invicti (formerly Netsparker)” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Acunetix
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Acunetix notes its heuristic approach and AcuSensor reduces false positives, but still recommends” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“more enterprise-friendly, but usually much more expensive” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Acunetix offers the best balance of cost, ease of use, and sufficient capabilities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“A pragmatic mid-sized B2B starting point is Acunetix for a balanced commercial DAST with low false positives” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For dev teams wanting quick, reliable scans with low false positives: Choose Invicti or Acunetix.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs StackHawkInvicti vs Bright SecurityInvicti vs EscapeInvicti vs ProbelyInvicti vs Veracode DASTOWASP ZAP vs AcunetixAcunetix vs StackHawkAcunetix vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs EscapeAcunetix vs ProbelyAcunetix vs Veracode DASTAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DAST standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.