We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Rapid7 AppSpider based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"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."
"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 initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
"The setup is usually straightforward."
"I like the ability the product has to detect vulnerabilities quickly, when it has been released in our environment, then displaying them to us."
"Rapid7 AppSpider is good at managing different applications. It uses applets and generates reports to cover the PCA/GDPR compliance requirements."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"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."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"Meta data is always needed."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"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."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"The enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"AppSpider could improve in the area of integration. They need to add more integration opportunities."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 67 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Application Security Testing (AST) 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 Veracode. See our Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 AppSpider report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
