We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Rapid7 AppSpider based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"The most valuable feature of Rapid7 AppSpider is the vulnerability reporting data. Additionally, the data is reported in a convenient way rather than seeing them as a PDF. We are able to generate all the reports exactly what we want in a flexible way."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"What I like most about AppSpider is that it's easy to use and its automated scan gives me all the details I need to know when it comes to vulnerabilities and their solutions."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"It is an expensive solution."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"The performance of the solution could improve. When I compare the speed it is slower than others on the market. There are some tricks we use to help speed up the solution."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"Integration could be better."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 67 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 13 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Invicti and Cloudflare. See our Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 AppSpider report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
