Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › IT › Developer platform › DAST › Invicti vs StackHawk
Dynamic application security testing · November 2026 Edition

Invicti vs StackHawk

Seven of fourteen models named Invicti first on the direct prompt; three named StackHawk. Both were named by all fourteen models and Invicti carries 51 labels and StackHawk 41, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Invicti

endorsed leader

Named in three categories this edition.

StackHawk

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share33%11%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate12%2%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#4A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels5141A 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.Acunetix was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Invicti vs OWASP ZAP · Invicti vs Acunetix · 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 modelsStackHawk
Direct731 against Invicti
Paraphrase92
Comparative40
Budget-constrained001 against Invicti
Scale-constrained211 against Invicti
Negative003 against Invicti · 1 against StackHawk
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 StackHawk were named in the same answer seventy-eight times, of the 174 answers naming Invicti and the 186 naming StackHawk. In those answers StackHawk took the first choice thirteen times and Invicti twenty-six.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Invicti and StackHawk stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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 StackHawk first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Invicti on the left and StackHawk on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Invicti and StackHawk stood in it.

Invicti first, StackHawk an alternative

7 of 14 modelsStackHawk 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

StackHawk first, Invicti an alternative

3 of 14 modelsInvicti was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti
Gemini 3.5 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Bright Security, Escape, Invicti
GPT-6 LunaStackHawk alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, Invicti

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcunetix alternatives: Invicti, OWASP ZAP, StackHawk
GLM 4.7 FlashXOWASP ZAP, Probely alternatives: Burp Suite, Invicti, StackHawk

Neither was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Kimi K2Acunetix, Intruder alternatives: Bright Security, Detectify
MiniMax M2.5Acunetix, Bright Security alternatives: Detectify, Intruder

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
StackHawk leads by thirteen points.
StackHawk13%#3 of 13
Invicti0%#11 of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Invicti leads at mid-market.
Invicti33%#1 of 13
StackHawk11%#4 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Invicti leads by fifty-eight points.
Invicti58%#1 of 14
StackHawk0%#12 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 StackHawk

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.

“its own docs acknowledge that scan results can include false positives, so findings still need review and confirmation” GPT-5.4 mini · negative prompt · soft negative
“Modern mid-market / DevSecOps native | StackHawk, Escape, Bright (NeuraLegion)” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“the best DAST tool is usually StackHawk if your team is developer-driven” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
“StackHawk — Best for Developer-Centric & Modern API-First B2B SaaS” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
Invicti vs OWASP ZAPInvicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs Bright SecurityInvicti vs EscapeInvicti vs ProbelyInvicti vs Veracode DASTOWASP ZAP vs StackHawkAcunetix vs StackHawkStackHawk vs Bright SecurityStackHawk vs EscapeStackHawk vs ProbelyStackHawk 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.