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."It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"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."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"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 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 the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"I would say that it is stable, as I am not aware of any major issues."
"It scans all the components developed within a web application."
"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."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"Meta data is always needed."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"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 enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"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 26th 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.