We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and Rapid7 AppSpider 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."The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which is compliant with international standards."
"The most valuable feature of Rapid7 AppSpider is the vulnerability reporting data. Additionally, the data is reported in a convenient way rather than seeing them as a PDF. We are able to generate all the reports exactly what we want in a flexible way."
"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 setup is usually straightforward."
"It scans all the components developed within a web application."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"When it is set up properly, it can do scanning on web apps with multiple engines automatically."
"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."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"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."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"There are too many false positives."
"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"The enterprise interface is too simple. It should be more customizable."
"The product needs to be able to scale for large companies, like ours. We have millions of IP addresses that need to be scanned, and the scalability is not great."
"AppSpider has some problems with the RAM needed while scanning."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"This price of this solution is a little bit expensive."
"Integration could be better."
"The dashboard and interface are crucial and they need some improvement."
OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while Rapid7 AppSpider is ranked 25th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 13 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while Rapid7 AppSpider is rated 7.8. 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 AppSpider writes "Useful vulnerability reporting data, flexible, and simple implementation". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Contrast Security Assess, whereas Rapid7 AppSpider is most compared with Rapid7 InsightAppSec, Acunetix, Invicti, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning. See our OWASP Zap vs. Rapid7 AppSpider report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
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.
