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 (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Vulnerability Management (15th), Container Security (14th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)
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 (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 14.4%, down from 23.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 InsightAppSec is 5.7%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One14.4%
Rapid7 InsightAppSec5.7%
Other79.9%
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

"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The user interface is modern and nice to use."
"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."
"If you really are worried about your business, i.e. about your development sites or development environments, Checkmarx is a great solution."
"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"The stability has been very good; I would rate it five out of five in terms of reliability, as it doesn't crash or freeze, there are no bugs or glitches, and the performance is good."
"Relatively speaking, InsightAppSec is good compared to Insight VM."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec helps us in both regulatory compliance and in strengthening our security posture."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"Dynamic application security scanning provides predefined templates and supports customization. The ability to scan external and internal applications, including on-premises ones, is precious. Additionally, it is a cloud platform, so we don't need to deploy servers or resources. This makes it time-efficient and cost-effective."
"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."
 

Cons

"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"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."
"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement in detecting phishing pages."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"I required a solution to manage on-premises, but I was not as satisfied as expected."
"There is room for improvement in the response time of customer service and support levels."
"The dynamic scanning feature has simplified and improved the security testing process. I suggest adding a SaaS feature to the solution to support scanning SaaS applications, making it more comprehensive. It would be beneficial if the solution could also scan mobile applications. It only scans web applications and should also cover mobile applications, including firmware recommendations."
"The product’s pricing could be flexible."
"The reporting feature of Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement as it currently provides basic reports."
"Scanning can be better. When you add new projects for the same product, it either duplicates or replaces the scan configuration."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We're using a commercial version of Checkmarx, and we paid for the solution for one year. The price is high and could be reduced."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"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."
"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."
"It is a good product but a little overpriced."
"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."
"It is an expensive solution."
"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."
"The price of this product is very cheap."
"Its price is competitive. It is not expensive."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec is cheap."
"I'm not sure how much it costs exactly, but I know it's expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
896,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
5%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
9%
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 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 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: April 2026.
896,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.