We performed a comparison between Rapid7 AppSpider and SonarQube 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 initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"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."
"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."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"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."
"I like that it's easy to navigate not just in terms of code findings but you can actually see them in the context of your source code because it gives you a copy of your code with the items that it found and highlights them. You can see it directly in your code, so you can easily go back and make the corrections in the code. It basically finds the problems for you and tells you where they are."
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"It is a very good tool for analysis and security vulnerability checking."
"SonarQube has a lot of value, it reviews the basic coding standards and security vulnerabilities of code that help to reduce issues."
"We have the software metrics that SonarQube gives us, which is something we did not have before. This helps us work towards aiming coding standards to empower us to move in the direction of better code quality. SonarQube provides targets and metrics for that."
"It is an easy tool that you can deploy and configure. After that you can measure the history of your obligation and integrate it with other tools like GitLab or GitHub or Azure DevOps to do quality code analysis."
"The good thing with SonarQube is it covers a lot of issues, it's a very robust framework."
"SonarQube is useful for controlling all of our Azure task tracking and scanning."
"Integration could be better."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"The dashboard and interface are crucial and they need some improvement."
"For improvement, this solution could be offered on Docker and the cloud and the support for this solution could be improved. Customizing rules could also be made simpler."
"Code security could be better. They are already focusing on it, but I see a lot of improvement opportunities over there. I can see a lot of false positives in terms of security. They need to make the tests more accurate so that the false positives are not detected so frequently. It would also help if they provided us with an installer."
"The learning curve can be fairly steep at first, but then, it's not an entry-level type of application. It's not like an introduction to C programming. You should know not just C programming and how to make projects but also how to apply its findings to the bigger picture. I've had users who said that they wish it was easier to understand how to configure, but I don't know if that's doable because what it's doing is a very complicated thing. I don't know if it is possible to make a complicated thing trivially simple."
"We've been using the Community Edition, which means that we get to use it at our leisure, and they're kind enough to literally give it to us. However, it takes a fair amount of effort to figure out how to get everything up and running. Since we didn't go with the professional paid version, we're not entitled to support. Of course that could be self-correcting if we were to make the step to buy into this and really use it. Then their technical support would be available to us to make strides for using it better."
"The solution could improve by having better-consulting services."
"Dynamic scanning is missing and there are some issues with security scanning."
"This solution finds issues that are similar to what is found by Checkmarx, and it would be nice if the overlap could be eliminated."
"A better design of the interface and add some new rules."
Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 26th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 112 reviews. Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Invicti and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security. See our Rapid7 AppSpider vs. SonarQube 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.
