Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition
Invicti vs Bright Security
Seven of fourteen models named Invicti first on the direct prompt; one named Bright Security. Invicti was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Bright Security by seven and Invicti carries 51 labels and Bright Security 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Bright Security
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share33%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate12%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels5111A 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 Acunetix · Invicti vs StackHawk
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 modelsBright SecurityDirect711 against Invicti
Paraphrase90
Comparative40
Budget-constrained001 against Invicti
Scale-constrained201 against Invicti
Negative003 against Invicti
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Invicti and Bright Security stood in it.
| Model | DirectBS | ParaphraseBS | ComparativeBS | Budget-constrainedBS | Scale-constrainedBS | NegativeBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | BS | BS | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | BS | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | BS | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | BS | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | BS | | | BS | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | BS | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | BS | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
InvictiBS Bright Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Invicti on the left and Bright Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Invicti and Bright Security stood in it.
Invicti first, Bright Security an alternative
7 of 14 modelsBright Security 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
Mistral SmallAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: OWASP ZAP, 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
Bright Security first, Invicti not the choice
1 of 14 modelsInvicti was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 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
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
Invicti0%#11 of 13Bright Security0%#– of 13
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Invicti leads by thirty-one points.
Invicti33%#1 of 13Bright Security2%#5 of 13
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Invicti leads by fifty-six points.
Invicti58%#1 of 14Bright Security2%#10 of 14
The full enterprise standing →What 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 Bright Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“I'd recommend starting with Acunetix or Bright Security” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Use modern AI-assisted DAST tools (Bright Security, Invicti, Checkmarx DAST, Detectify) that support modern architectures” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
“Bright Security is best for mid-market companies with API-first architectures seeking early SDLC security integration.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs StackHawkInvicti vs EscapeInvicti vs ProbelyInvicti vs Veracode DASTOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityAcunetix vs Bright SecurityStackHawk vs Bright SecurityBright Security vs EscapeBright Security vs ProbelyBright Security 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.