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

Checkmarx One vs GitHub Code Scanning 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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
79
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)
GitHub Code Scanning
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.3%, down from 12.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitHub Code Scanning is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One10.3%
GitHub Code Scanning1.6%
Other88.1%
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.
AK
Software Development Manager at Amazon
Code scanning identifies vulnerabilities quickly and improves team response with minimal setup
I have been using Git for approximately 13-14 years. I have used GitHub Code Scanning for about three to four years. The primary purpose is to identify any vulnerability in the code itself. The system logs vulnerabilities that we can immediately examine to see all the error-prone areas. The AI functionalities include predefined agents that scan through and immediately provide responses regarding the best nomenclature or code coverage percentage. It's actually a one-time setup, and the team benefits as long as they push code and changes in the repository itself. Every time we push something, we immediately check the total deviation, whether our code coverage has improved, or if any vulnerability has been identified. There is always a metrics dashboard that we can see and identify. Primarily, GitHub is used for doing the versioning itself in the repository. With vulnerability functionality being provided and AI agents available, it makes a complete package. As soon as we publish our code, we immediately get to know the test code coverage. This immediately informs us about all the vulnerable areas which are not being fully tested. If we address those areas, most vulnerabilities are resolved. Even after tests are added, if by any chance the test is not treated cleanly or corner cases are missed, GitHub Code Scanning immediately flags those corners. It's always beneficial to have because it's not humanly possible to check all corner case scenarios, but as a system where they diagnose each line item, that's very helpful.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are its integration with multiple SCM solutions and CICD tools, its ability to scale according to user licenses, and the quick scanning process."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."
"The static code analysis capability in GitHub Code Scanning is a very powerful feature, providing the ability to identify vulnerabilities and ensure code quality."
"The solution helps identify vulnerabilities by understanding how ports communicate with applications running on a system. Ports are like house numbers; to visit someone's house, you must know their number. Similarly, ports are used to communicate with applications. For example, if you want to use an HTTP web server, you must use port 80. It is the port on which the web application or your server listens for incoming requests."
"GitHub Code Scanning has positively impacted my organization as it helps us recognize errors and avoid many later issues which may arise."
"GitHub Code Spaces brings significant value with its simplicity and ease of use."
"It's very scalable, very easy to handle, and very intuitive."
 

Cons

"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."
"It takes around 30 to 40 minutes for checking a build. If you can make it within five minutes or 10 minutes, that would be great."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"One area for improvement could be the ability to have an AI system digest the reports generated from code scanning and provide a summary. Currently, the reports can be extensive, and users may overlook details, such as outdated libraries, which could be highlighted for attention."
"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."
"At times it becomes very annoying as it highlights certain things which are intuitive. They require code coverage for those aspects as an extra overhead."
"When running code scans, GitHub Code Scanning provides recommendations for probable fixes. However, integrating a feature where developers receive real-time highlights of vulnerabilities when checking in or merging a PR would be beneficial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."
"The solution's price is high and you pay based on the number of users."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"It is a good product but a little overpriced."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"The minimum pricing for the tool is five dollars a month."
"GitHub Code Scanning is a moderately priced solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Transportation Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise45
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub Code Scanning?
The organization pays for the license of GitHub Code Scanning, but specific price details are unknown.
What needs improvement with GitHub Code Scanning?
In my opinion, areas of GitHub Code Scanning that could be improved include that a few things are not visible to us, such as where it stores data and which path. There is a separate team for that w...
What advice do you have for others considering GitHub Code Scanning?
I am an end user only here with GitHub Code Scanning. I currently might be using the latest version of GitHub Code Scanning, but I don't remember the specific version. I have not utilized the real-...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. GitHub Code Scanning and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.