We performed a comparison between Fortify WebInspect and Rapid7 InsightAppSec based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"The solution's technical support was very helpful."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."
"Technical support has been good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"The solution is stable."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"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."
"It is a very robust solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"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."
"We have often encountered scanning errors."
"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."
"The initial setup was complex."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"Our biggest complaint about this product is that it freezes up, and literally doesn't work for us."
"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."
"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."
"In the future, if they can have integration with a lot of ticketing systems then it would be amazing."
"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."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"When you add new projects for the same product, it either duplicates or replaces the scan configuration. If I run a scan for the same product with a different scan configuration, it should keep the previous scan configuration and not replace it with the new scan configuration. It should just add the new scan configuration. That would be helpful. They do keep the results as it is, but the scan configuration keeps changing. For example, I have set a scan configuration to a full scan, and next week, I want to run a new scan for the same product with some changes or new functionalities. I want to run a partial scan. Currently, if I change the scan configuration to partial, it changes the old one also to partial. That should be improved."
"The product’s pricing could be flexible."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
Fortify WebInspect is ranked 2nd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 17 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. Fortify WebInspect is rated 7.0, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify WebInspect writes "A powerful tool catering to multiple use cases that provides reasonably good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". Fortify WebInspect is most compared with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify on Demand, OWASP Zap, Acunetix and Invicti, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Acunetix and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Fortify WebInspect vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
See our list of best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) vendors.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.