We performed a comparison between Rapid7 AppSpider and Rapid7 InsightAppSec 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."
"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 most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"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's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"The solution is stable."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"The initial setup for us was easy enough. We didn't face too many issues. Deployment took maybe 30 minutes. It's quite quick and doesn't cause too much trouble at the outset."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"It is a very robust solution."
"One of the challenges I have with AppSpider is that it gives you a lot of false positives, especially when compared to other solutions."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"Integration could be better."
"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."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"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."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"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."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"They should add more features. I would like to see them do a little more on static analysis and also interactivity analysis. Currently, it does very basic static analysis. It could do a little more static analysis, which is something that would help. A lot more interactivity analysis should also be there. It should basically look at security during interactivity."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement in detecting phishing pages."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 26th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Rapid7 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix, Invicti, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix and Invicti. See our Rapid7 AppSpider vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
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.