Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apiiro vs Rapid7 AppSpider comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apiiro
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
20th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (11th), API Security (11th), Software Supply Chain Security (8th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (12th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (4th)
Rapid7 AppSpider
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
32nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Apiiro is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 AppSpider is 0.5%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Ryan-Murphy - PeerSpot reviewer
A great secrets detection feature, good visibility, and integrates well
The biggest benefit of Apiiro for us was the visibility it gave us into our GitHub organization, which we didn't have much of before. The benefit of adding Apiiro early is that it would be integrated into our pipeline from the start. Since we have had some of our software products for many years, we would have to do a lot of cleaning up before integrating Apiiro into our developer workflow. Integrating Apiiro early allows us to stay ahead of the curve on security issues and address them as they arise, rather than having a huge backlog for developers to fix. Apiiro's ability to provide visibility into the risk of our application components is great. This was a selling feature for us. Apiiro was a less mature product a little over a year ago when they were still early on in their development. However, they have made fantastic advancements over the last year, which has given us much more visibility into that sort of thing. Apiiro has helped prevent business-critical risks by making recommendations based on what it thinks is a high or critical issue. I think it does a pretty good job at that, but those recommendations still need a manual review from us. In general, if Apiiro flags a critical issue, it is usually pretty close to identifying whether it is business-critical or not. It is something we should review, even if we end up downgrading it. Apiiro raises valid concerns, and I am happy that it does.
Rizwan-Alam - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy automated web app scanning, but gives many false positives and isn't always stable
One of the challenges I have with AppSpider is that it gives you a lot of false positives, especially when compared to other solutions. This is the main aspect that I hope to see Rapid7 improve on. Beyond reducing false positives, I would also like to see them implement better reporting features, particularly in the executive summary type of reports which need to be user-friendly and easily understood by non-technical people. The recommendations and solutions on these reports could always be improved to make them more relevant, too. Lastly, the stability isn't that great, and sometimes it becomes non-responsive. I feel like the stability of the application is very average and currently needs more work.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The workflow automation is likely the best aspect of the solution."
"Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"The solution is highly stable, rated at ten out of ten."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"One of the most valuable features of AppSpider is its broad range of authentication identification, which is a key reason for its utilization."
 

Cons

"I would like support for our self-hosted Git server, other than GitHub, just regular Git."
"User management is a little bit clunky."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"For Japanese customers, localization is needed. The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"Integration could be better."
"The product needs to be able to scale for large companies, like ours. We have millions of IP addresses that need to be scanned, and the scalability is not great."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is expensive if you want to buy the Enterprise version that is able to scan multiple applications at once."
"The price of Rapid7 AppSpider cost 9,000 annually but there is limited usage. Large companies are able to negotiate a better price or a better deal for the usage with the vendor."
"AppSpider is closed-source software and you need to acquire a license in order to use it."
"The licensing cost depends on the number of users."
"The price is pretty fair."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apiiro?
Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apiiro?
My understanding is the pricing is pretty competitive.
What needs improvement with Apiiro?
Apiiro recently integrated SaaS, and we would love to see them expand on that. They provide many integrations to different products, including SaaS products such as Snyk. Ideally, Apiiro would incl...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Rapid7 AppSpider?
The price is not high, but for Japanese customers, localization may incur additional costs.
What needs improvement with Rapid7 AppSpider?
For Japanese customers, localization is needed. The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users.
What is your primary use case for Rapid7 AppSpider?
Our clients use AppSpider to address security concerns for their websites. It is particularly used by customers who require security assessments.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Apiiro Control Plane (ASOC), Apiiro API Security (SAST), Apiiro Open Source (SCA)
AppSpider
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Morgan Stanley, Rakuten, Jack Henry, SoFi, Colgate, Navan
Microsoft
Find out what your peers are saying about Apiiro vs. Rapid7 AppSpider and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.