No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Rapid7 AppSpider comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (8th)
Rapid7 AppSpider
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (30th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 11.6%, up 9.9% compared to last year.
Rapid7 AppSpider, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 0.8% mindshare, up 0.5% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing11.6%
Veracode15.7%
Checkmarx One15.0%
Other57.7%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Rapid7 AppSpider0.8%
SonarQube15.3%
Checkmarx One9.7%
Other74.2%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

AP
Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.
HW
Marketing Expert at J's communication
Clients benefit from broad authentication and effective crawling but need localization improvements
Our clients use AppSpider to address security concerns for their websites. It is particularly used by customers who require security assessments One of the most valuable features of AppSpider is its broad range of authentication identification, which is a key reason for its utilization.…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."
"It is a good product, comparable to AppScan, quite scalable, and offers good cost/value with the support and backing from Micro Focus."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"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, and you don't need specialized skills to use the product."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"This solution is a leader in the industry."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"One of the most valuable features of AppSpider is its broad range of authentication identification, which is a key reason for its utilization."
"It scans all the components developed within a web application."
"It does a scan that performs about 100 checks on web applications and produces a clear report on all of the vulnerabilities that are found."
 

Cons

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."
"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."
"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"This solution is very expensive."
"The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed."
"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"The enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"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."
"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."
"The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users."
"The documentation about integration with AppSpider is bad news and some integrations are quite difficult to do right now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"The price is okay."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution is very expensive."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"The licensing cost depends on the number of users."
"AppSpider is closed-source software and you need to acquire a license in order to use it."
"It is expensive if you want to buy the Enterprise version that is able to scan multiple applications at once."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
11%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise15
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produ...
What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?
I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...
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

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
AppSpider
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aaron's
Microsoft
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. Rapid7 AppSpider and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.