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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Rapid7 InsightAppSec comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
3rd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
DevSecOps (10th)
Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Ranking in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) category, the mindshare of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is 22.2%, down from 30.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 InsightAppSec is 11.8%, down from 12.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Navin N - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective scanning of diverse file extensions with fast reporting and issue resolution
We develop software packages for clients, and these clients are mostly in the BFSI sector. The packages need to be scanned, and we engage Fortify WebInspect for this.  Customers typically perform their own application pen tests, but in some cases, we have engagements where customers want us to scan…
Shritam Bhowmick - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"It is scalable and very easy to use."
"There are lots of small settings and tools, like an HTTP editor, that are very useful."
"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."
"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."
"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."
"The accuracy of its scans is great."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"Relatively speaking, InsightAppSec is good compared to Insight VM."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"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."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec helps us in both regulatory compliance and in strengthening our security posture."
"The automatic automation of the automated authorization to the SCANNET environment is valuable."
"Relatively speaking, InsightAppSec is good compared to Insight VM."
 

Cons

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."
"We have had a problem with authentification."
"The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate."
"Not sufficiently compatible with some of our systems."
"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."
"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."
"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."
"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."
"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."
"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 reporting feature of Rapid7 InsightAppSec needs improvement as it currently provides basic reports."
"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."
"The interface should be a little bit easier to manage. Sometimes, the logic that they use is kind of strange. They need to work a little bit more on their interface to make it more understandable. The interface is the only problem. I'm using Rapid7, which is very intuitive. There are other applications available in the market with a better interface. They can include more techniques or options to test different types of security because the templates are limited. It would be great to see them follow the MITRE ATT&CK framework or what is there in tools like Veracode and Synopsys."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"The product’s pricing could be flexible."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."
"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."
"It’s a fair price for the solution."
"This solution is very expensive."
"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."
"The price is okay."
"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."
"The price of this product is very cheap."
"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."
"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."
"Rapid7 InsightAppSec is cheap."
"Its price is competitive. It is not expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Government
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortify WebInspect?
The solution's technical support was very helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?
The price of Fortify WebInspect is high, with the cost depending on the number of virtual users. It is approximately 25% higher than other solutions.
What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?
The main area for improvement in Fortify WebInspect is the price, as it is too high compared to the market rate. The cost of the license depends on the number of virtual users and, in comparison to...
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?
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...
What is your primary use case for Rapid7 InsightAppSec?
Our main use case for Rapid7 InsightAppSec is to perform internal assessment of applications and external facing applications. We have a cloud engine plus on-premises engine, and we have been lever...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect
InsightAppSec
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aaron's
CenterPoint Energy, CPA Australia, Hypertherm, First American Financial Corporation, Rackspace
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.