Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), 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 (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 16.4%, down from 26.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 InsightAppSec is 6.2%, up from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One16.4%
Rapid7 InsightAppSec6.2%
Other77.4%
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

"The UI is user-friendly."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization, especially in our CI/CD integration, where when we try to build any feature, they are always scanned by Checkmarx before they get released."
"It is a stable product."
"The best features Checkmarx One offers, in my opinion, are that it is easy to use, and there is not much deep diving into this."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code."
"The solution is stable."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"You have various attack modules, and you also have the Attack Replay feature for the attack sequence. You can reproduce an attack and see it. That is a very good feature I noticed in this solution. It helps developers as well."
"Relatively speaking, InsightAppSec is good compared to Insight VM."
"The reporting functionality is excellent."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec is a good product for dynamic application security testing, providing neat reports that include validation actions and helping to generate web application firewall rules for web applications."
"The templates feature is very easy. You just choose the kind of attack you want on your web application, and you run it against that template and receive a report. It's great."
"In Rapid7 InsightAppSec, a distinctive feature is the provision of a CDM for integrating web servers and web applications. To establish the connection between these applications, you only need to paste the provided CDN into your metadata. Once connected, every piece of information, including vulnerabilities, can be accessed. It also offers demo sessions."
 

Cons

"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"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 product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"It takes around 30 to 40 minutes for checking a build. If you can make it within five minutes or 10 minutes, that would be great."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"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."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"The reporting feature of Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement as it currently provides basic reports."
"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."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"Currently, InsightAppSec lacks similar functionality. Customers must wait for remediation during the developers' preparation of a new version."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"The reporting is definitely an aspect of the solution that's in need of some work. We found that we'd try to use widgets, but often getting them to work for us wasn't very clear. They need to be more user friendly or offer better instructions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The solution is costly."
"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."
"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."
"It is a good product but a little overpriced."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"Its price is competitive. It is not expensive."
"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."
"I'm not sure how much it costs exactly, but I know it's expensive."
"The price of this product is very cheap."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec is cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
884,108 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

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 do you like most about Rapid7 InsightAppSec?
In Rapid7 InsightAppSec, a distinctive feature is the provision of a CDM for integrating web servers and web applications. To establish the connection between these applications, you only need to p...
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...
 

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.
884,108 professionals have used our research since 2012.