No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Application Defender comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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 Application Security Tools
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Vulnerability Management (11th), Container Security (13th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)
Fortify Application Defender
Ranking in Application Security Tools
34th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 8.0%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify Application Defender is 1.5%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One8.0%
Fortify Application Defender1.5%
Other90.5%
Application Security Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Shiva - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a cloud solution provider with 201-500 employees
Dec 17, 2019
 

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.
VS
CTO at Abcl
Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines
I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. However, I'm concerned about how it handles an increasing number of lines of code. As the complexity grows, so does the time it takes for the tool to review everything. I want more clarity on how Fortify Application Defender handles multiple threats. We have numerous endpoints, but the tool runs in our pipeline, meaning it operates in the cloud. All our code is configured there, and the tool runs integration testing, unit testing, user testing, and final production code tests. It's a day-to-day experience. It's utilized almost every day as part of our pipeline runs. Each team responsible for integration testing, human testing, user access testing, and preproduction testing runs it whenever they take a build.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Checkmarx One has positively impacted the organization, and since replacing the previous tool, SAST and SCA scans are conducted in a couple of minutes instead of hours or days, saving time and increasing speed to market by reducing the timeline from three or four days to one day only."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"It is very easy to insert the tool in the SDLC because there are a wide variety of ways to access the source-code, initiate scans, and review the results."
"The solution overall is very good at detecting and pinpointing vulnerabilities in the code."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"Overall, we are very satisfied with Checkmarx and it is a product that I recommend."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"The tool's most valuable feature is software composition analysis. This feature works well with my .NET applications, providing a better understanding of library vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"It is one of those things that once you see it in action, it is pretty impressive."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
 

Cons

"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"For Checkmarx One, I think that adding repositories and scanning impromptu code could improve it."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Checkmarx One can be improved by reducing noise and improving false positive filtering."
"The default module that provides statistics is basic, and you need more elaborate information to do vulnerability management."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"The solution could improve the time it takes to scan. When comparing it to SonarQube it does it in minutes while in Fortify Application Defender it can take hours."
"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."
"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."
"It is an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"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)."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive."
"The licensing is very complex, it's project based and can range from $10,000 to $200,000+ depending on the project type and size."
"The product’s price is much higher than other tools."
"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."
"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten. It comes as an annual cloud subscription. The tool's pricing is around 50 lakhs."
"Fortify Application Defender is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

Shiva - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a cloud solution provider with 201-500 employees
Dec 17, 2019
Dec 17, 2019
Checkmarx SAST is a product supporting 20+ languages, including the modern ones (GoLang, Kotlin, Swift, Scala, Typescript, React). Its language support is constantly kept up with the current versions of the respective languages/frameworks (e.g. .NET Core 2.x etc.). Unlike Fortify, Checkmarx analyses raw (uncompiled) source code, which makes it less susceptible to changes in the built environme...
2 out of 5 answers
it_user1181481 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solving Acute Engineering Problems at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Dec 16, 2019
The major difference is that Checkmarx scans the code without compiling the code. This has a great advantage as code building issues are eliminated, scan time is very less and false positive is less to some extent. One more major this is Checkmarx learns as you eliminate false positives and does not show the same issue again. We can perform incremental scans on the codebase where the old issue is nicely marked as "Recurring" and new ones in Red as NEW. Checkmarx has a highly customizable filter creation where you can create a filter that can eliminate the common recurring issues in scans. This feature is very flexible and you can write your own filters and also, write specific patterns that are found in manual review which is a great help as coding styles differ form teams to teams.
it_user1242723 - PeerSpot reviewer
Company Owner at BCMC
Dec 16, 2019
Looking at the Gartner report I would say that Checkmarx is way easier to set up (initial setup) compared to Micro Focus Fortify. Also, the financial strength of the Micro Focus Fortify spin/merger is a concern so investments could be at risk.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
 

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 is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
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
HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Fortify Application Defender and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.