We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap 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."It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"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."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Rapid7 AppSpider is the vulnerability reporting data. Additionally, the data is reported in a convenient way rather than seeing them as a PDF. We are able to generate all the reports exactly what we want in a flexible way."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"What I like most about AppSpider is that it's easy to use and its automated scan gives me all the details I need to know when it comes to vulnerabilities and their solutions."
"It scans all the components developed within a web application."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
"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 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 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."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Contrast Security Assess, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, Acunetix, Invicti, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning. See our OWASP Zap 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.
