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

Checkmarx One vs Fortify Software Security Center comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (2nd), Vulnerability Management (12th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (9th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (4th), AI Security (4th)
Fortify Software Security C...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
18th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 8.3%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 1.4%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One8.3%
Fortify Software Security Center1.4%
Other90.3%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

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.
Diego Caicedo Lescano - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
Enables centralized analysis and improves governance through seamless tool integration
The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console. You can centralize both static analysis and dynamic analysis, and correlate both analyses in one tool to get better results by combining those independent results from each solution. That is outstanding, and there is no tool I have seen on the market that offers these capabilities. I appreciate the interoperability with other solutions from Fortify Software Security Center. Because we are using Kiuwan, you can run Kiuwan analyses and integrate them with Fortify Software Security Center to get those results in a single console. That is a good console for centralizing things in one point. That is one of the best features of the on-premises Fortify.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the solution for dynamic application testing."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization, especially in our CI/CD integration, where when we try to build any feature, they are always scanned by Checkmarx before they get released."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"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."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"It's very important because they want to scan their source code every day, so we provide CICD integration to our customers so they can auto build and auto test every day, get reports, and fix issues."
"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console."
"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."
"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
 

Cons

"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"From an administrative standpoint, I would rate Checkmarx with a five out of ten."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"Checkmarx One can be improved by reducing noise and improving false positive filtering."
"There are some downtimes when Checkmarx One is being upgraded to the latest version or some improvement is there."
"We felt like we were the extended quality organization for Checkmarx as they frequently released poor quality patches that broke the existing functionality."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported."
"Vulnerability details: Reduce false positive results and improve it by providing more details how I can resolve the vulnerability."
"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"The initial setup of this solution is very complex. Specifically, the integration between other parts of the solution is difficult."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"The support for Fortify on-premises is the same as for the other products. I would say the support is not good and I would rate it a three out of ten."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's price is high and you pay based on the number of users."
"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's relatively expensive."
"The solution is costly."
"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 number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"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 average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."
"The solution is priced fair."
"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
914,109 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

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 Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise3
 

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?
In my opinion, there are no areas that could be improved with Fortify Software Security Center. I would say it is a good product and a mature product. However, the SAST has many improvement areas. ...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
We have installed Fortify Static Code Analysis, SAST, in Ecuador in two customers. The Fortify ScanCentral includes three components: SAST, Fortify Software Security Center, and the WebInspect.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Fortify Software Security Center and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,109 professionals have used our research since 2012.