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

Checkmarx One 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

Checkmarx One
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
4th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Vulnerability Management (24th), Static Code Analysis (3rd), API Security (5th), DevSecOps (5th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (9th)
Rapid7 AppSpider
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
31st
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 August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.0%, down from 12.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 AppSpider is 0.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Syed Hasan - PeerSpot reviewer
Partner experiences excellent technical support and seamless initial setup
In my opinion, if we are able to extract or show the report, and because everything is going towards agent tech and GenAI, it would be beneficial if it could get integrated with our code base and do the fix automatically. It could suggest how the code base is written and automatically populate the source code with three different solution options to choose from. This would be really helpful.
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 only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"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."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"The entire solution is interactive and has a point-and-click user experience, which makes it easy to find items or drill down on information. You don't need specialized skills to use the product."
"One of the most valuable features of AppSpider is its broad range of authentication identification, which is a key reason for its utilization."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"The solution is highly stable, rated at ten out of ten."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
 

Cons

"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"Some were valid and some were not applicable for us based on the scenario."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"One of the challenges I have with AppSpider is that it gives you a lot of false positives, especially when compared to other solutions."
"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."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."
"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications)."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"It is expensive if you want to buy the Enterprise version that is able to scan multiple applications at once."
"AppSpider is closed-source software and you need to acquire a license in order to use it."
"The price is pretty fair."
"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."
"The licensing cost depends on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.
What do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.
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.
 

Also Known As

No data available
AppSpider
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Microsoft
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 AppSpider and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.