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 most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"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 scans all the components developed within a web application."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"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."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"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."
"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"Meta data is always needed."
"The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code."
"One of the challenges I have with AppSpider is that it gives you a lot of false positives, especially when compared to other solutions."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"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."
"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."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"The dashboard and interface are crucial and they need some improvement."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
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.
