Checkmarx One vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing comparison

The compared Checkmarx and Black Duck solutions aren't in the same category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 in AS , with an average rating of 8.2, and holds a 9.9% mindshare in the category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in FTT , and holds a 17.6% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

18,784 Views
13,524 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Read 4 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing reviews

1,274 Views
140 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Defensics Protocol Fuzzing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Application Security Tools Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,933 peers since 2012

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

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

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), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Checkmarx One is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 9.9%, down 11.0% compared to last year.
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 17.6% mindshare, down 20.0% since last year.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	9.9%
SonarQube	16.3%
Snyk	5.5%
Other	68.3%

Application Security Tools

Fuzz Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing	17.6%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	33.2%
GitLab	26.6%
Other	22.599999999999994%

Fuzz Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

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.

Read full review

Sarath Kumar Choday

Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies

Product security tests for switches and router sections

Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."

"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization because in the past, when Checkmarx One scan was not implemented, we faced a lot of issues finding vulnerabilities inside the repository, but now, since we have integrated Checkmarx One into our repository, we can smoothly and very easily find vulnerabilities and manage those effectively."

"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."

"The license is fairly costly but worth the investment."

"Overall, I use Checkmarx One as a strategic control point to improve developer velocity while strengthening application security across the full software lifecycle."

"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."

"The consistency of code showed our team where they are inconsistent or where they have made simple omissions."

"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."

More Checkmarx One pros

"ROI was 100%. Since there are no product suites available that provide the level of testing available with Codenomicon, the development, quality and security assurance departments know that the investment was correct."

"The stability of this product is great; we tested it under multiple constraints and even on cloud services it is absolutely stable."

"Simple and straightforward GUI."

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent; it will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure, and because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

Cons

"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."

"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."

"When we have many applications to check, I need to wait a long time in the queue."

"Vulnerability details: Reduce false positive results and improve it by providing more details how I can resolve the vulnerability."

"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."

"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."

"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."

"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."

More Checkmarx One cons

"It requires understanding the Defensics protocol."

"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

"You can't implement proprietary ciphering algorithms, nor can you modify protocol models if you need to test customized public protocols."

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's relatively expensive."

"The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies."

"We're using a commercial version of Checkmarx, and we paid for the solution for one year. The price is high and could be reduced."

"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)."

"Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up."

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."

"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Government

Computer Software Company

16%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

No data available

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 43% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 9% of the time

Blue Cedar vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 7% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 6% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 6% of the time

Ixia BreakingPoint vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 5% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

March 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

March 2026

Download Defensics Protocol Fuzzing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Codenomicon Defensics

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

February 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.