Invicti vs GitGuardian
Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.
Entry price
Quote on request
Quote onlyFree tier available
Free tierWhat drives the bill
The metric that actually scales your invoice.
Enterprise licensing by number of target sites or applications.
Free tier covers small teams entirely; business pricing is quote-based per developer.
Free tier
Demo and trial on request.
Free for individuals and teams up to 25 developers.
Open source
Self-hostable
No-code authoring
Languages
Platforms
Fits teams
Adoption
Established
Invicti Security · since 2009
Widely used
GitGuardian · since 2017
Strengths
- Proof-based scanning eliminates most false-positive triage, which is the main cost of DAST.
- Handles authenticated scanning of modern JavaScript applications well.
- Good asset discovery for organisations that do not know all their own sites.
- Validity checking distinguishes a live credential from a revoked one, which transforms triage priority.
- Scans full commit history, where most leaked secrets actually live.
- Free for teams up to 25 developers.
Limitations
- Expensive relative to free DAST alternatives.
- Scans take time and are not suited to per-commit feedback.
- Dynamic testing alone cannot find everything a code review would.
- Secrets scanning only — not a general security platform.
- Historical scans on old repositories produce a large initial backlog.
- Requires repository access, which needs a security review of its own.
Best for
Organisations with many web applications and no capacity to triage scanner noise.
Any organisation with more than a handful of repositories and no secrets scanning today.
All of these integrate with: Jira, GitHub, Slack.
Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.