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."The UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"It has all the features we need."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The product’s most valuable feature is UI. It is easy to manage and find vulnerabilities in the application."
"It is a very robust solution."
"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."
"You have various attack modules, and you also have the Attack Replay feature for the attack sequence. You can reproduce an attack and see it. That is a very good feature I noticed in this solution. It helps developers as well."
"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 uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"Meta data is always needed."
"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."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"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."
"In the future, if they can have integration with a lot of ticketing systems then it would be amazing."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"The reporting is definitely an aspect of the solution that's in need of some work. We found that we'd try to use widgets, but often getting them to work for us wasn't very clear. They need to be more user friendly or offer better instructions."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"The product’s pricing could be flexible."
"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."
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, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Fortify WebInspect. 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.
