We performed a comparison between Checkmarx 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."It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"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 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 a very robust solution."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"The solution is stable."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"The product’s most valuable feature is UI. It is easy to manage and find vulnerabilities in the application."
"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."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"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."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"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."
"In the future, if they can have integration with a lot of ticketing systems then it would be amazing."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"We'd like to see integrations with WAF solutions."
"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."
Checkmarx 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 is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx 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 is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify WebInspect and GitLab. See our Checkmarx 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.