Index › Products › AppCheck · October 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

AppCheck

6Judge labels

1First choices

1Negative labels

5 / 14Models named it

2Categories

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. AppCheck was named 5 times in DAST and 1 other category, where OWASP ZAP led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business37 of 53

under the label threshold

Mid-market12 of 58

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In dast · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named AppCheck for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Dynamic application security testing	Developer platform	2%	12 of 58	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by OWASP ZAP at 29%
Application security posture management	Developer platform	0%	31 of 70	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Aikido Security at 37%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AppCheck yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated AppCheck across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase4 labels1

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“1. AppCheck - a DAST tool that offers a combination of automated scans and human expertise.” Llama 4 Maverick · DAST · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Strobes / AppCheck: if you want a more exposure-management / pentest-heavy approach around application risk” GPT-5.4 mini · ASPM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“a representative of the "scans plus humans who explain them" lane, chosen by mid-market teams” Llama 4 Maverick · DAST · direct prompt · alternative

“Bright Security or AppCheck are also excellent choices” Mistral Small · DAST · paraphrase prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AppCheck, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AppCheck was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Acunetix3 of 62Not among the top eight

Aikido Security3 of 61Not among the top eight

Burp Suite Enterprise Edition2 of 62Not among the top eight

OWASP ZAP2 of 60Not among the top eight

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise2 of 60Not among the top eight

Snyk1 of 61Not among the top eight

Astra Security1 of 60Not among the top eight

Bright Security1 of 60Not among the top eight

Checkmarx DAST1 of 60Not among the top eight

Checkmarx One1 of 60Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named AppCheck. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 6 of the 6 answers that named AppCheck and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org4

expertinsights.com4

getastra.com4

escape.tech3

community.owasp.org2

cybersectools.com2

g2.com2

immuniweb.com2

stackhawk.com2

acunetix.com1

No domain is on file for AppCheck, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/dast-tools-by-use-case4

getastra.com/blog/dast/tools4

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-dynamic-application-security-testing-dast-3

community.owasp.org/Vulnerability_Scanning_Tools2

cybersectools.com/resources/shortlists/best-dast-tools2

escape.tech/blog/dast-tools-buyers-guide2

escape.tech/blog/top-dast-tools2

immuniweb.com/resources/best-dast-tools2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow AppCheck

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AppCheck's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AppCheck, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for AppCheck by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where AppCheck is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name AppCheck, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.