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

Checkmarx One vs ExtraHop Reveal(x) 360 comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Ranking in Container Security
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), 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)
ExtraHop Reveal(x) 360
Ranking in Container Security
51st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) (25th), Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) (11th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (40th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 2.3%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ExtraHop Reveal(x) 360 is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One2.3%
ExtraHop Reveal(x) 3600.3%
Other97.4%
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Maksym Toporkov - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Research And Development at Quipu GmbH
A competitive choice for network detection and response with exceptional user interface, ease of implementation and minimal false positives
The NDR feature analyzes network traffic, creating records with connection details. While these records offer insights, there's a limitation in investigating payloads directly. ExtraHop provides an option for an additional server to save payloads, but its temporary storage has constraints. Unlike some competitors, it lacks an automatic payload-saving feature for each detection, presenting an improvement opportunity. Suggested enhancement involves the main sensor prompting payload storage for specific detections, streamlining the investigation process, and contributing to a more efficient workflow. A drawback includes packet storage limitations for payload data, necessitating timely extraction for thorough investigations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The UI is user-friendly."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted our organization as we tend to find vulnerabilities very early in the development cycle."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"It is scalable."
"It is very easy to collect and handle data in ExtraHop Reveal(X) Cloud. Integration with Big Data is also easy. Many of our customers integrate it with Big Data platforms like Splunk or Elastic. It is also easy to handle and easy to understand."
"It stands out for its intuitive and efficient user interface, robust detection capabilities with minimal false positives, and the ability to handle encrypted traffic, making it a valuable asset for network security and management."
 

Cons

"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."
"Checkmarx One can be improved by reducing noise and improving false positive filtering."
"Checkmarx needs improvement in its Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and API security features."
"They can include integration with SAP. Currently, no vendor provides network performance monitoring in the SAP market. It is a very big market. We have around 400 customers for SAP in Korea. In the USA, there are more than 10,000 customers."
"There needs to be more support."
"A drawback includes bucket storage limitations for payload data, necessitating timely extraction for thorough investigations."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."
"It's relatively expensive."
"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."
"Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up."
"It is an expensive solution."
"When compared to other solutions, it aligns with the market average, indicating a competitive pricing level."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
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.
What do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
ExtraHop Reveal(X) Cloud, Reveal(X) Cloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Wizards of the Coast
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. ExtraHop Reveal(x) 360 and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.