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."Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"It is a stable product."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"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 the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"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."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"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 product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"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."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"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 enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
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.