We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Rapid7 AppSpider based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"It scans all the components developed within a web application."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"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."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"The enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"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."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"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 dashboard and interface are crucial and they need some improvement."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. 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 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Invicti and Cloudflare. See our Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 AppSpider report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.