We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap 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."Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"The solution is scalable."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"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."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"The product’s most valuable feature is UI. It is easy to manage and find vulnerabilities in the application."
"The solution is stable."
"In Rapid7 InsightAppSec, a distinctive feature is the provision of a CDM for integrating web servers and web applications. To establish the connection between these applications, you only need to paste the provided CDN into your metadata. Once connected, every piece of information, including vulnerabilities, can be accessed. It also offers demo sessions."
"The templates feature is very easy. You just choose the kind of attack you want on your web application, and you run it against that template and receive a report. It's great."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"The product’s pricing could be flexible."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"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."
"The reporting is definitely an aspect of the solution that's in need of some work. We found that we'd try to use widgets, but often getting them to work for us wasn't very clear. They need to be more user friendly or offer better instructions."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"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."
OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Rapid7 AppSpider, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix and Invicti. See our OWASP Zap 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.