Compare Rapid7 InsightAppSec vs. Veracode
Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 18th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 1 review while Veracode is ranked 1st in Application Security Testing (AST) with 39 reviews. Rapid7 InsightAppSec is rated 9.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "It integrates well with the rest of my systems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Enables us to automatically submit each new build for scanning and get results directly into our JIRA". Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap and Veracode, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand.
Most Helpful Review | |||||
|
| ||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, Micro Focus and others in Application Security Testing (AST). Updated: January 2020. 398,259 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent. | We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes. I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code. The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs. We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle. One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important. It has an easy-to-use interface. Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools. It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities. |
Cons | |
I would like more details of what the product can do. | One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications. Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them. I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages. Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis. We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time. Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives. The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report. It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
Information Not Available | They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey. They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works. Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription. No issues, the pricing seems reasonable. It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool. I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms. Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good. I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs. 398,259 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 1,133 Comparisons 763 Reviews 1 Average Words per Review 288 Avg. Rating 9.0 | Views 55,846 Comparisons 29,768 Reviews 39 Average Words per Review 647 Avg. Rating 8.2 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 34% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time. |  Compared 50% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time.  Compared 11% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| InsightAppSec | |
Learn | |
| Rapid7 | Veracode Video Not Available |
Overview | |
Your web applications may be complex, but your application security testing tool doesn’t need to be. InsightAppSec brings Rapid7’s proven Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) technology to the Insight platform, combining powerful application crawling and attack capabilities, flexibility in scan scope and scheduling, and accuracy in results with a modern UI, intuitive workflows, and sensible data organization. This enables you to identify XSS, SQL injection, CSRF, and other vulnerabilities with unparalleled ease. The best part? All of these capabilities are delivered via the cloud so that you’re up and running in minutes to identify the critical security risks that exist in your applications. | Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects. |
Offer | |
Learn more about Rapid7 InsightAppSec | Keep your software secure Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle. |
Sample Customers | |
Information Not Available | State of Missouri, Rekner |
Top Industries | |
Software R&D Company34% Comms Service Provider29% Media Company6% Government6% | Financial Services Firm31% Insurance Company15% Retailer8% Consumer Goods8% Software R&D Company38% Comms Service Provider13% Financial Services Firm7% Media Company6% |
Company Size | |
No Data Available | Small Business21% Midsize Enterprise25% Large Enterprise55% Small Business17% Midsize Enterprise6% Large Enterprise78% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, Micro Focus and others in Application Security Testing (AST). Updated: January 2020.
398,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also Rapid7 InsightAppSec Reviews, Veracode Reviews, and our list of Best Application Security Testing (AST) Companies.
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.