Dynamic application security testing · October 2026 Edition
Invicti vs Burp Suite
Five of fourteen models named Invicti first on the direct prompt; zero named Burp Suite. Invicti was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Burp Suite by thirteen and Invicti carries 43 labels and Burp Suite 45, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Burp Suite
accepted challengerNamed in three categories this edition.
First-choice share20%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels4345A 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 Burp Suite · 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 modelsBurp SuiteDirect50
Paraphrase311 against Invicti
Comparative531 against Burp Suite
Budget-constrained002 against Burp Suite
Scale-constrained201 against Burp Suite
Negative311 against Invicti · 4 against Burp Suite
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 October 2026 Edition, Invicti and Burp Suite were named in the same answer sixty-four times, of the 142 answers naming Invicti and the 121 naming Burp Suite. In those answers Burp Suite took the first choice three times and Invicti twenty-five.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Invicti and Burp Suite stood in it.
| Model | DirectBS | ParaphraseBS | ComparativeBS | Budget-constrainedBS | Scale-constrainedBS | NegativeBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | BS | BS | BS | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | BS | BS | BS | BS | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | BS | BS | BS | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | BS | ||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | BS | BS | | BS | |
| Mistral Small | BS | BS | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | BS | BS | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | BS | BS | BS | ||
| Kimi K2 | | BS | BS | BS | BS | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | BS | BS | BS | BS | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | BS | BS | BS | BS | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | BS | BS | BS | BS |
InvictiBS Burp Suite first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Invicti on the left and Burp Suite on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Invicti and Burp Suite stood in it.
Invicti first, Burp Suite an alternative
5 of 14 modelsBurp Suite 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
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.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
Kimi K2Bright Security, StackHawk alternatives: Acunetix, Invicti
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Perplexity SonarBright Security alternatives: Acunetix, Beagle Security, Detectify, Intruder
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 12Burp Suite0%#11 of 12
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Invicti leads by eighteen points.
Invicti20%#2 of 11Burp Suite2%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Invicti leads by fifty-eight points.
Invicti62%#1 of 14Burp Suite4%#5 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 Burp Suite
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“The Verdict: Avoid for automated scanning. Use only for manual penetration testing.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Burp Suite Enterprise has complex setup and configuration requirements that often need dedicated security expertise” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Extremely manual and limited automation in the free version; Pro is better but still developer/pentester-focused.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“commercial tools like Burp Suite Professional and Invicti catch more vulnerability types than open-source alternatives, with Burp Suite achieving ~29% coverage of critical vulnerabilities” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd generally recommend Burp Suite Professional if you want the best balance of capability, usability, and web-app-focused coverage” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Burp Suite Professional (PortSwigger): Best for manual testing + automated scanning hybrid. Excellent SPA support.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared
OWASP ZAP vs InvictiOWASP ZAP vs Burp SuiteInvicti vs AcunetixInvicti vs StackHawkInvicti vs Bright SecurityInvicti vs IntruderInvicti vs Aikido SecurityAcunetix vs Burp SuiteStackHawk vs Burp SuiteBright Security vs Burp SuiteIntruder vs Burp SuiteBurp Suite 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.