"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"The UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"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."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"The dashboard and interface are crucial and they need some improvement."
"The enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"Integration could be better."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
Earn 20 points
Checkmarx is ranked 2nd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 20 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 4 reviews. Checkmarx is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Easy interface that is user friendly, quick scanning, and good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Scan web applications for vulnerabilities and automate testing with various engines". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Netsparker by Invicti, Acunetix by Invicti and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning. See our Checkmarx 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.
