Barrion vs Invicti (Netsparker)
Barrion and Invicti both target web applications. Barrion uses passive, read-only checks that are safe for production and built for continuous monitoring with step-by-step fixes. Invicti uses automated DAST with proof-based scanning to find and verify vulnerabilities. This comparison helps you choose based on how you want to run scans.
Comparison at a glance
| Aspect | Barrion | Invicti (Netsparker) |
|---|---|---|
| Scan type | Passive (read-only), no attack payloads, production-safe | Active DAST, proof-based scanning, automated exploitation |
| What it finds | Misconfigurations, TLS/headers, cookies, exposure, drift | OWASP Top 10, SQLi, XSS, and other verified vulnerabilities |
| Use case | Continuous monitoring, compliance, audit evidence, zero risk | Vulnerability discovery, pre-release and CI, compliance scanning |
| Production | Designed for production, no impact on availability | Typically staging or scheduled, active scans can affect availability |
| Remediation | Step-by-step fixes per finding, PDF/CSV export | Findings with proof and guidance, tracker and pipeline integration |
| Pricing | Free tier, paid for monitoring | Commercial, contact for pricing |
Who Barrion is best for
Teams that want always-on web app security in production and audit-ready reports without active scanning. Good for engineering teams and gap coverage between pentests.
Who Invicti (Netsparker) is best for
Teams that want automated DAST with verified findings and integration into CI/CD and issue trackers, and can run scans in non-production or controlled windows.
Summary
Barrion and Invicti can complement each other. Use Barrion for continuous, passive monitoring and compliance. Use Invicti for active vulnerability discovery and verification in staging or pipelines. Choose Barrion for production-safe ongoing coverage, Invicti for deep automated DAST.
Try Barrion with a free scan, no credit card required. See your results and step-by-step fixes in under a minute.
Run free security scan →
