We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Synopsys Code Dx based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."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."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"The customers were looking for something around static security and dynamic security, and in all those areas, they were looking for an industry leader with a proven solution. Synopsys is a Gartner leader, so I position this particular technology for the technical pre-sales part of it."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"The initial setup is a bit challenging because things are not easy. It needs a lot of technology adaptability plus the customer's environment-specific use cases."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Synopsys Code Dx is ranked 31st in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Synopsys Code Dx is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys Code Dx writes "Facilitates continuous assessment of applications, covering both static and dynamic security aspects". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Synopsys Code Dx is most compared with Veracode, Coverity and SonarQube.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.