Ironimo vs. Invicti vs. Burp Suite vs. OWASP ZAP: An Honest Comparison

If you're evaluating web application security scanners, you're likely comparing tools across different categories that don't map neatly onto each other. Enterprise DAST platforms, pentester tools, open-source scanners, and developer-first solutions all claim to solve the same problem but approach it differently.

This is an honest comparison. We'll cover what each tool does well, where it falls short, and who it's actually built for. We build Ironimo, so we're biased — but we'll be transparent about it.

The Contenders

Scanning Engine: What's Actually Running?

This is the fundamental differentiator and the first question every technical buyer should ask.

Invicti uses a proprietary scanning engine with "proof-based scanning" — when it finds a vulnerability, it attempts to confirm it by extracting evidence (like reading a specific file via path traversal). This dramatically reduces false positives. Their claimed accuracy is 99.98%. The tradeoff: you can't inspect what the engine actually tested. It's a black box, albeit a very good one.

Burp Suite uses its own crawling and scanning engine, refined over 15+ years. Burp Pro is the manual pentester's tool — you intercept traffic, modify requests, and use the scanner as an assistant. Burp Enterprise automates this for CI/CD, but the engine is still proprietary. The extension ecosystem (BApps) lets power users customize behavior significantly.

OWASP ZAP is a single open-source scanning engine. You can read the source code, understand every check it makes, and contribute improvements. The tradeoff: it's one tool doing everything — spidering, active scanning, passive analysis — rather than specialized tools for each task.

StackHawk builds on top of ZAP's engine with a developer-friendly wrapper. Adds CI/CD integration, a modern UI, and simplified configuration. The underlying scanner is still ZAP-based.

Detectify uses a crowdsource-powered vulnerability engine — ethical hackers submit vulnerability tests that Detectify verifies and adds to their payload library. This means the scanner is constantly updated with real-world attack techniques. Focused on external attack surface rather than deep application testing.

Ironimo doesn't have a scanning engine. Instead, it orchestrates 19 real Kali Linux tools — nmap for port scanning, nikto for web server testing, nuclei for template-based vulnerability detection, sqlmap for SQL injection, hydra for authentication testing, wpscan for WordPress security, xsstrike for XSS detection, commix for command injection, ffuf for web fuzzing, subfinder for subdomain enumeration, and more. Each tool is battle-tested, open-source, and inspectable. You can see exactly which tool ran, what commands were executed, and the raw output.

Our honest take: Invicti's proof-based approach is genuinely impressive for reducing false positives. Burp Pro in expert hands finds things no automated tool catches. ZAP is solid for basic scanning. But if you want to see what was actually tested and why — full transparency — a multi-tool approach with visible execution is the only option.

Depth vs. Automation

Burp Suite Pro offers the deepest testing — in the hands of a skilled operator. Manual testing with Burp Repeater, Intruder, and the scanner finds business logic flaws, complex authentication bypasses, and context-dependent vulnerabilities that no automated tool catches. But it requires hours of skilled work per application.

Burp Suite Enterprise automates Burp's scanning capabilities but loses the manual testing depth. It's automated Burp without the pentester.

Invicti provides good automated depth with its combined DAST + IAST approach. If you can deploy the IAST agent inside your application, it gets visibility into code execution during scanning, which catches more issues than DAST alone.

OWASP ZAP offers moderate depth. Its active scanner covers the common vulnerability classes well, but struggles with complex authentication flows, JavaScript-heavy applications, and multi-step processes.

StackHawk optimizes for speed in CI/CD, which means scans are fast but not as deep. Good for catching regressions, less suited for comprehensive security assessments.

Detectify is strong for external surface monitoring but doesn't do deep application testing. It won't find SQL injection in your authenticated API endpoints.

Ironimo achieves depth through tool diversity rather than a single deep engine. Running 19 specialized tools — from reconnaissance (nmap, subfinder, theharvester) through vulnerability detection (nuclei, nikto, wpscan) to exploitation testing (sqlmap, xsstrike, commix, hydra) — covers more attack surface than any single scanner. The AI orchestration layer adapts the toolchain based on discoveries — if nmap finds an exposed database port, sqlmap gets targeted against it; if whatweb identifies WordPress, wpscan runs automatically. The depth comes from using the right tool for the right test.

Where we're honest about limitations: We don't match Burp Pro in the hands of an expert pentester for manual, creative testing. We don't match Invicti's IAST capabilities. Our strength is automated, multi-tool depth — not manual exploration.

Pricing Comparison

Key pricing observations:

• Invicti is 4-7x our price at every tier. If you're paying $30K+ for Invicti Enterprise and getting value from it, stay. If you're questioning whether you need that level (and cost), we should talk.
• Burp Pro is cheap but manual. $475/yr is excellent value — if you have a security engineer spending time running scans manually. Factor in the labor cost and it's significantly more expensive than automation.
• ZAP is free but not free. The tool costs nothing. The engineering time to configure, maintain, tune, and interpret results is substantial. We've talked to teams spending 10-20 hours/month managing ZAP.
• StackHawk's contributor model works for small teams but scales linearly. At 50 contributors, you're at $25,200/yr — approaching enterprise DAST pricing without enterprise DAST depth.

CI/CD Integration

StackHawk: Best in class. Built specifically for CI/CD. GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins, CircleCI — native integrations.

Invicti: Strong CI/CD integration through API and plugins. Jenkins, Azure DevOps, TeamCity, Bamboo.

Burp Suite Enterprise: Good integration via API. Can trigger scans from CI/CD pipelines.

OWASP ZAP: Possible via CLI and Docker, but requires configuration. The automation framework works but isn't as polished as commercial alternatives.

Detectify: API-triggered scans possible. Not primarily designed for CI/CD workflows.

Ironimo: API-triggered scans with CI/CD integration. Not as mature as StackHawk's native CI/CD experience, but covers the core workflow: trigger scan on deploy, get results, fail/pass pipeline based on severity thresholds.

Our honest take: If CI/CD integration is your primary requirement, StackHawk does it best. We're building toward parity but aren't there yet.

Who Should Use What

Use Invicti if: You're an enterprise (1000+ employees) with a dedicated AppSec team, need DAST + IAST + SCA in one platform, have budget for $30K+/yr, and want minimal false positives.

Use Burp Suite Pro if: You have a skilled security engineer or pentester who needs a manual testing tool. The best bang-for-buck in security tooling at $475/yr — if you have the expertise to use it.

Use Burp Suite Enterprise if: You need automated scanning at enterprise scale and your team already knows and trusts Burp's engine.

Use OWASP ZAP if: You have security engineering capacity to configure and maintain it, need a free option, and can accept moderate scanning depth.

Use StackHawk if: CI/CD integration is your top priority, you want developer-friendly UX, and you need fast pipeline-integrated scans more than deep comprehensive assessments.

Use Detectify if: Your primary concern is external attack surface monitoring — discovering subdomains, exposed assets, and misconfigurations across your public-facing infrastructure.

Use Ironimo if: You want pentester-grade scanning depth (multiple specialized tools) without the manual work, need full transparency into what was tested and how, are a mid-market team (100-2000 employees) that can't justify $30K+/yr for enterprise DAST, and value real open-source tools over proprietary engines.

The Honest Summary

Every tool on this list has genuine strengths. The DAST market isn't zero-sum — many security teams use multiple tools for different purposes.

What we believe Ironimo does differently:

1. 19-tool orchestration instead of a single scanning engine
2. Full transparency — see exactly what ran and why
3. Mid-market pricing — enterprise-grade scanning at 10-20% of enterprise DAST cost
4. AI-driven adaptation — the scan changes based on what it discovers

What we don't do as well (yet):

1. CI/CD maturity — StackHawk is ahead here
2. Manual testing workflow — Burp Pro is unmatched for hands-on work
3. IAST capabilities — Invicti's combined approach catches things DAST alone misses
4. Track record — the established players have years of production use

We're building in public and shipping fast. If what we're building sounds like what you need, join the waitlist.