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

Checkmarx One vs Rapid7 InsightAppSec comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (1st)
Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
AI Observability (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 15.3%, down from 24.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 InsightAppSec is 5.8%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One15.3%
Rapid7 InsightAppSec5.8%
Other78.9%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

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.
Shritam Bhowmick - PeerSpot reviewer
Vulnerability Management Lead at garrett
Provides reliable applications security but needs better integration options
There are areas for improvements regarding false positives. Integration capabilities are lacking, as options for integrations with other tools such as SNOW, Jira, or other integration tools are not sufficient in Rapid7 InsightAppSec. The user interface sometimes has glitches, which may prevent appropriate results during navigation, and even when we get appropriate results, it can be impossible to export them to CSV records or download files. Regarding scalability, Rapid7 InsightAppSec is not a scalable solution for our industry due to limited integration capabilities. Rapid7 relies on another tool called InsightConnect, which requires additional investment, detracting from scalability. Another area that needs improvement is the integration of AI capabilities into the platform. Both Rapid7 InsightAppSec and InsightVM need to advance in that area. In terms of behavioral and pattern recognition, identifying complex attacks such as SQL, blind SQL, JSON, and LDAP injections often results in 94% false positives. This necessitates improvement in their behavioral-based analytics feature.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Checkmarx offers many valuable features, including Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), Infrastructure as Code (IAC), Supply Chain Security, and API Security."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted our organization as we tend to find vulnerabilities very early in the development cycle."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile, and if the code has dependencies or build errors the scan fails, while with Checkmarx pre-compile scanning is seamless and allows us to scan more code."
"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."
"When considering DAST, it is not attributed to a singular feature but rather the capabilities of the engine that provides a genuine penetration testing experience and delivers insightful reports."
"For our needs, Rapid7 was the ideal go-to tool."
"The automatic automation of the automated authorization to the SCANNET environment is valuable."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"Relatively speaking, InsightAppSec is good compared to Insight VM."
"The solution is stable."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
 

Cons

"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"Currently, InsightAppSec lacks similar functionality. Customers must wait for remediation during the developers' preparation of a new version."
"There is room for improvement in the response time of customer service and support levels."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement in detecting phishing pages."
"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 feature of Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement as it currently provides basic reports."
"The technical support from Rapid7 is not bad, but the response time can be quite slow sometimes."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."
"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."
"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 tool's pricing is fine."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies."
"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."
"The price of this product is very cheap."
"Its price is competitive. It is not expensive."
"I'm not sure how much it costs exactly, but I know it's expensive."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec is cheap."
"They offer a good price, but I don't remember its cost. It is fair as compared to the competition. We have opted for project-based licensing, not user-based. We can add any number of users. That doesn't matter. It is worth the money."
"I rate Rapid7 InsightAppSec’s pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
886,576 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

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 Enterprise5
 

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 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 needs improvement with Checkmarx?
One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If it is possible to set it in the SAST portal to scan the repositories automaticall...
What needs improvement with Rapid7 InsightAppSec?
Customers sometimes experience issues with performance. One thing that I recall is that most customers often want to have reporting as per their customized dashboard. This needs to be improved beca...
What is your primary use case for Rapid7 InsightAppSec?
I usually recommend this solution for financial institutions. Banks and financial institutions need this solution mostly because they have to follow stringent compliance advisory requirements, so t...
What advice do you have for others considering Rapid7 InsightAppSec?
I have not heard any complaints. I do not have any recommendations because customers were initially worried about the number of scans they used to perform, and now it has been enhanced or it will s...
 

Also Known As

No data available
InsightAppSec
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
CenterPoint Energy, CPA Australia, Hypertherm, First American Financial Corporation, Rackspace
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
886,576 professionals have used our research since 2012.