We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Rapid7 InsightAppSec based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"The UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"It is a very robust solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"The product’s most valuable feature is UI. It is easy to manage and find vulnerabilities in the application."
"You have various attack modules, and you also have the Attack Replay feature for the attack sequence. You can reproduce an attack and see it. That is a very good feature I noticed in this solution. It helps developers as well."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"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."
"The solution is stable."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"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."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"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."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"In the future, if they can have integration with a lot of ticketing systems then it would be amazing."
"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."
"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 only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. 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 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and GitLab. See our Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
