We performed a comparison between CAST Highlight and Checkmarx One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"The way it tells you which codebase is more ready for the cloud and which codebase is less ready is very valuable. It works seamlessly with most languages."
"The most valuable features of CAST Highlight are automation and speed."
"The most valuable features of the CAST Highlight are the interface and there are three notations that are very simple to understand and communicate with."
"It offers good performance."
"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"It is a stable product."
"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."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The ease of configuration and customization could be improved in CAST Highlight."
"CAST Highlight could improve to allow us to comment and do a deep analysis by ourselves."
"Its price should be better. It is a pretty costly tool. They have two products: CAST Highlight and CAST AIP. I would expect CAST Highlight to have the Help dashboard and the Engineering dashboard. These dashboards are currently a part of CAST AIP, and if these are made available in CAST Highlight, customers won't have to use two different products all the time."
"There's a bit of a learning curve at the outset."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"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."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
CAST Highlight is ranked 10th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 5 reviews while Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews. CAST Highlight is rated 7.8, while Checkmarx One is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of CAST Highlight writes "Easy to set up with optimized and automated insights". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". CAST Highlight is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Black Duck and GitLab, whereas Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity. See our CAST Highlight vs. Checkmarx One report.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.