We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Rapid7 InsightAppSec based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"We use the solution for dynamic application testing."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"In Rapid7 InsightAppSec, a distinctive feature is the provision of a CDM for integrating web servers and web applications. To establish the connection between these applications, you only need to paste the provided CDN into your metadata. Once connected, every piece of information, including vulnerabilities, can be accessed. It also offers demo sessions."
"The initial setup for us was easy enough. We didn't face too many issues. Deployment took maybe 30 minutes. It's quite quick and doesn't cause too much trouble at the outset."
"The templates feature is very easy. You just choose the kind of attack you want on your web application, and you run it against that template and receive a report. It's great."
"The solution is stable."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"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."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."
"It is an expensive solution."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
"They should add more features. I would like to see them do a little more on static analysis and also interactivity analysis. Currently, it does very basic static analysis. It could do a little more static analysis, which is something that would help. A lot more interactivity analysis should also be there. It should basically look at security during interactivity."
"The interface should be a little bit easier to manage. Sometimes, the logic that they use is kind of strange. They need to work a little bit more on their interface to make it more understandable. The interface is the only problem. I'm using Rapid7, which is very intuitive. There are other applications available in the market with a better interface. They can include more techniques or options to test different types of security because the templates are limited. It would be great to see them follow the MITRE ATT&CK framework or what is there in tools like Veracode and Synopsys."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"The product’s pricing could be flexible."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement in detecting phishing pages."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. 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 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and GitLab. See our Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
