Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition
Invicti vs Bright Security
Five of fourteen models named Invicti first on the direct prompt; two named Bright Security. Invicti was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Bright Security by eight and Invicti carries 43 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 share20%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#5A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels4311A 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. OWASP ZAP vs Invicti · OWASP ZAP vs Bright Security · Invicti vs Acunetix
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 SecurityDirect52
Paraphrase321 against Invicti
Comparative50
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained20
Negative301 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 | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | BS | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | BS | | | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | BS | | ||||
| 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 not the choice
5 of 14 modelsBright Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Intruder, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
GPT-5.4 miniAcunetix, Invicti alternatives: Burp Suite
MiniMax M2.5Invicti alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
GPT-6 LunaInvicti alternatives: Burp Suite DAST, StackHawk
Muse Glimmer 30BInvicti alternatives: Acunetix, Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP
Bright Security first, Invicti an alternative
2 of 14 modelsInvicti was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
Kimi K2Bright Security, StackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashEscape alternatives: Astra Security, Invicti, StackHawk
DeepSeek V4 FlashStackHawk alternatives: Escape, Intruder, Invicti
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Aikido Security, Invicti
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Acunetix, Astra Security
Mistral SmallBurp Suite Enterprise Edition, Intruder alternatives: Aikido Security
Llama 4 MaverickBurp Suite Enterprise Edition alternatives: Aikido Security, AppCheck, Intruder
GLM 4.7 FlashXStackHawk alternatives: OWASP ZAP, Rapid7 InsightAppSec
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
Invicti leads by five points.
Invicti5%#5 of 12Bright Security0%#– of 12
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Invicti leads by twelve points.
Invicti20%#2 of 11Bright Security8%#5 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Invicti leads by sixty-two points.
Invicti62%#1 of 14Bright Security0%#13 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. Five of six in this category shown.
“Invicti has had GUI scan bugs observed at times and slows down while scanning large applications” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Quote-only (enterprise skew) | Exploit confirmation; scales well but pricier” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Invicti is considered the best DAST tool for most mid-market enterprises, with proof-based scanning that eliminates false-positive triage” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Combines DAST with IAST, excels at identifying vulnerabilities in web apps and APIs, and is known for high accuracy and low false positives.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“commercial tools like Burp Suite Professional and Invicti catch more vulnerability types than open-source alternatives” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative 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.
“For most mid-sized B2B companies, I'd recommend Bright Security as the primary choice.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Bright Security is the strongest fit for many mid-market B2B teams” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“I would recommend Acunetix or Bright Security as top choices” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs InvictiOWASP ZAP vs Bright SecurityInvicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs StackHawkInvicti vs IntruderInvicti vs Burp SuiteInvicti vs Aikido SecurityAcunetix vs Bright SecurityStackHawk vs Bright SecurityBright Security vs IntruderBright Security vs Burp SuiteBright Security vs Aikido SecurityAll 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.