No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmarx One vs Rapid7 AppSpider comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Checkmarx One
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (2nd), Vulnerability Management (11th), Container Security (13th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)
Rapid7 AppSpider
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
30th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 8.8%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 AppSpider is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One8.8%
Rapid7 AppSpider0.7%
Other90.5%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution
Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance
Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.
HW
Marketing Expert at J's communication
Clients benefit from broad authentication and effective crawling but need localization improvements
Our clients use AppSpider to address security concerns for their websites. It is particularly used by customers who require security assessments One of the most valuable features of AppSpider is its broad range of authentication identification, which is a key reason for its utilization.…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"In my opinion, Checkmarx gives better results, and its protection is better than SonarQube."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are its integration with multiple SCM solutions and CICD tools, its ability to scale according to user licenses, and the quick scanning process."
"The visibility the solution gives you is great; it really gives you the ability to see what the root issues in the code actually are."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"Customer service has been quite good."
"It is really accurate and the rate of false positives is very low."
"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."
"AppSpider's most valuable feature is reporting - everything is stored in the local database so it can be sent to other machines."
"It does a scan that performs about 100 checks on web applications and produces a clear report on all of the vulnerabilities that are found."
"One of the most valuable features of AppSpider is its broad range of authentication identification, which is a key reason for its utilization."
"The solution is highly stable, rated at ten out of ten."
"The initial deployment is very straightforward and simple. The product is stable if configured properly."
 

Cons

"Dynamic testing. If it had that feature I would have liked to see more consideration of framework validations that we don't have to duplicate. These flags are false positives."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"Checkmarx needs improvement in its Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and API security features."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"Checkmarx isn't accredited by the US government for DOD networks, so we've been forced to remove it from the network."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"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."
"Implementing Rapid7 AppSpider requires scanning and self-identification mechanisms. You can add different types of authentication to each scan."
"The tech support is responsive but issues remain unresolved."
"There are some glitches with stability, and it is an area for improvement."
"For Japanese customers, localization is needed. The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users."
"The solution is too slow. It could take a full day to scan. Competitors are much faster."
"It needs better integration with mobile applications."
"Support response times are slow and can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."
"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications)."
"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."
"Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up."
"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."
"The price of Rapid7 AppSpider cost 9,000 annually but there is limited usage. Large companies are able to negotiate a better price or a better deal for the usage with the vendor."
"The price is pretty fair."
"It is expensive if you want to buy the Enterprise version that is able to scan multiple applications at once."
"The licensing cost depends on the number of users."
"AppSpider is closed-source software and you need to acquire a license in order to use it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
907,816 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Manufacturing Company
11%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
 

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.
What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Rapid7 AppSpider?
The price is not high, but for Japanese customers, localization may incur additional costs.
What needs improvement with Rapid7 AppSpider?
For Japanese customers, localization is needed. The product should offer a GUI in Japanese and provide Japanese reports for end-users.
What is your primary use case for Rapid7 AppSpider?
Our clients use AppSpider to address security concerns for their websites. It is particularly used by customers who require security assessments.
 

Also Known As

No data available
AppSpider
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Microsoft
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 AppSpider and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
907,816 professionals have used our research since 2012.