Checkmarx One vs Legit Security comparison

Checkmarx and Legit Security are both solutions in the Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.3, while Legit Security is ranked #15. Checkmarx holds a 9.0% mindshare in ASPM, compared to Legit Security’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Legit Security users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Legit Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. Legit Security Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Legit Security

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 909,725 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

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto N...

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) category, the mindshare of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is 2.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.0%, down from 16.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Legit Security is 2.5%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	9.0%
Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks	2.3%
Legit Security	2.5%
Other	86.2%

Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)

Featured Reviews

Sonali Jha

Technical Solutions Architect at IBM

Cloud security has improved as AI-driven runtime protection detects threats and reduces incidents

In my opinion, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks could be improved or enhanced in various ways. I don't have an idea about that yet because for that you actually need to use two or three different other tools to make a basic comparison. If you ask me how good the tool is, I would fairly rate it quite high. The tool is very popular, and customers can already see that it is one of the cloud leaders in the security space. The platform had a very good feature which provides documentation links about how to use a specific feature on the UI. It takes you to the proper documentation page where it suggests what to do and tells you about the steps that need to be done for a resource deployment. My thoughts about improving the product which I believe could greatly aid vendors is that it used to be a very user-friendly tool, but now they have incorporated everything under one umbrella. It has XDR, XSOAR, and Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. Before, we used to have separate modules and separate environments for each of these capabilities or features. Right now, it is a little complex and users would take their own time to know the tool better. This is something that would have been way better, but I would say there would be different opinions on this. Talking about user-friendliness, it has decreased now.

Read full review

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

Tim Crothers

CISO at Mandiant / FireEye

Provides strong visibility, straightforward integration, and reduces the risk of attacks

Legit Security is a product that hyper-focuses on the various aspects of the software development pipeline. For example, if an engineer spins off a new project and stands up a new Git project, Legit automatically detects it, connects Snyk and other tools, and ensures the engineering team doesn't have to think about it. This way, we stay on top of security from the beginning. On the other hand, Legit provides a clear view of the controls around repositories. We have standards requiring code reviews and similar practices, and Legit shows us whether these are being followed. Additionally, Legit helps us identify unmaintained repositories, which often arise when engineering teams try something and leave it behind. This knowledge allows us to determine the appropriate action for these neglected projects. One area where Legit falls short is secret detection. While it functions well overall, the feature has a 10-20 percent false positive rate, requiring some manual intervention. Almost everything else works flawlessly. The true value proposition of Legit lies not in its features but in its ability to support our product security program's focus on creating guardrails instead of toll gates. Unlike traditional programs that require security reviews at specific stages, hindering development flow, we strive to partner with the product engineering team to ship secure code seamlessly within their existing workflows. Legit plays a crucial role in this by automatically notifying us of new projects, eliminating the need for manual communication. This partnership approach, enabled by Legit, allows us to work much closer with our engineering teams than ever before.

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 capabilities of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks are valuable because it is the best product in the market."

"The most valuable features I have found in Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks are those that we provided to customers in a stock environment, as we have done some POCs and tried to check how it can help different organizations, and this same solution has been positioned for multiple customers."

"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks' cloud runtime security in terms of stopping attacks in real time is impressive."

"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks has impacted our organization positively by keeping our machines secure and our team using the dashboard to find issues quickly."

"Overall, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is a technically strong product, and I rate it ten out of ten."

"The AI and automation features in detecting and responding to high-risk threats are impressive; it's one of the best tools regarding AI technology and unifies security in one platform in real-time, improving vulnerability analysis, incident response, and compliance reporting."

"The most beneficial aspect of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Palo Alto in general is that there is a single platform for all cloud providers for securitization."

"From a technical standpoint or pricing, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is a stronger solution in the market at the moment compared to other products from ConnectWise or Symantec."

More Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks pros

"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."

"Checkmarx offers many valuable features, including Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), Infrastructure as Code (IAC), Supply Chain Security, and API Security."

"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."

"Vulnerability details is valuable."

"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."

"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."

"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."

"The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code."

More Checkmarx One pros

"Legit has increased my security posture to a level I couldn't achieve before. I don't need to worry as much about what's happening within my developer environments. I can rest assured that my vulnerabilities are being detected."

"We implemented Legit Security to gain visibility into all development teams and ensure that consistent controls are in place and accounted for on every route."

"Legit has had a positive effect on our overall security posture."

"The true value proposition of Legit lies not in its features but in its ability to support our product security program's focus on creating guardrails instead of toll gates."

Cons

"My thoughts about improving the product which I believe could greatly aid vendors is that it used to be a very user-friendly tool, but now they have incorporated everything under one umbrella."

"Overall, I rate Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks as an eight out of ten. I think that it could improve on price, as I know that the Google solution has the best price, and this is one of the conditions."

"In my opinion, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks can be improved by addressing forensic information collection and storage, although I cannot suggest specific things right now, based on what customers might need."

"The negative aspects or areas for improvement in the product include the fact that the cost might be a bit high, which challenges commercials, but not technically."

"Some aspects of the GUI can be confusing and make it difficult for me to find certain options or navigate where needed."

"From the commercial perspective, we have some limitations because Palo Alto has a minimum number of users of endpoints set at 200, which is quite high for the Italian market."

"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is creating some confusion in terms of names because this is recent."

"The pricing is high, making ROI challenging to justify, especially during transitions between solutions."

More Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks cons

"The default module that provides statistics is basic, and you need more elaborate information to do vulnerability management."

"Unfortunately, Checkmarx doesn't do any automated backups which is quite inconvenient."

"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."

"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."

"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."

"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."

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

"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."

More Checkmarx One cons

"I would like them to have their own static code scanner, and I'd like them to have their own open-source software scanners."

"One issue is that engineering teams don't always embed secrets in the same way, making it difficult for the tool to consistently identify them."

"The one we're working on right now is the ability to dynamically rerun development teams and groups."

"Legit Security could do a little better with detecting publicly exposed keys. It's not bad. The detections that they are running get to everything eventually, but it would be great if they could increase some of that awareness."

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."

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

"It is a good product but a little overpriced."

"It is the right price for quality delivery."

"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."

"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."

"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is reasonable."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

17%

Construction Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Outsourcing Company

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Outsourcing Company

University

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Construction Company

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	4

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

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

I am not fully aware of the pricing and licensing of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. The pricing is also based on...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

In my opinion, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks could be improved or enhanced in various ways. I don't have an idea...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

The usual use cases for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks that I have been working with mostly are as simple as dete...

See all answers

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 ...

See all answers

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 Ap...

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 additi...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Wiz vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 11% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 10% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 8% of the time

WithSecure Elements Exposure Management (XM) vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 7% of the time

CloudWize vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

More Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Competitors

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 25% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Docker vs Legit Security

Compared 19% of the time

Ox Security vs Legit Security

Compared 13% of the time

Ivanti Autonomous Endpoint Management vs Legit Security

Compared 10% of the time

Heeler vs Legit Security

Compared 9% of the time

Snyk vs Legit Security

Compared 7% of the time

More Legit Security Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks

August 2026

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks report

Download Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks product report

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

August 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Legit Security

August 2026

Download Legit Security product report

Overview

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks enhances cloud security with features like AI/ML threat detection and automated remediation, ensuring real-time protection and efficient management across cloud environments.

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks offers comprehensive cloud security posture management and runtime protection. It reduces manual tasks and accelerates incident investigation through advanced threat detection and AI-driven anomaly detection. With integration to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, it boosts threat response while reducing incident resolution time. Although users find the UI complex and pricing high, its capabilities in securing AWS, Azure, and other environments, as well as its potential integration with CyberArk, emphasize its enterprise-ready design for cloud transformation across diverse industry sectors.

What are the key features of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?

Runtime Protection: Ensures real-time security for workloads.
AI/ML-powered Threat Detection: Identifies threats using AI/ML technology.
Automated Remediation: Streamlines threat response through automation.
Comprehensive Detection Coverage: Offers extensive detection capabilities with unified data.
Integration with MITRE ATT&CK: Enhances threat response efficiency.

What benefits or ROI should users consider?

Enhanced Security Visibility: Provides dashboards for better security insights.
Reduced Manual Tasks: Automates processes for efficiency gains.
Improved Threat Response: Accelerates incident resolution with AI-driven anomaly detection.
Seamless Cloud Integration: Supports APIs and multi-cloud environments.

Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is deployed across industries like telecom, BFSI, and manufacturing for robust cloud security. It's leveraged for detecting misconfigurations and vulnerabilities, aiding cloud transformation and compliance with standards such as GDPR and NIST. The integration across cloud infrastructures, including AWS and Azure, supports policy creation and threat management strategies for diverse enterprises.

Palo Alto Networks

Checkmarx One delivers robust security through seamless integration with SCM and CI/CD tools, ensuring reliable SAST and SCA. Primarily used by organizations for vulnerability detection, it supports cloud and on-premises deployment to enhance secure coding practices.

Checkmarx One provides organizations with comprehensive tools for secure software development, integrating effectively with CI/CD pipelines to scan thousands of applications. Its capabilities extend to identifying vulnerabilities in both code bases and third-party software. Enhancing workflow by supporting SCM solutions, it assists in maintaining secure coding standards and compliance. While excelling in various areas, it requires improvements in scan speed, reduction of false positives, and broader platform integration, particularly for COBOL and Swift. Its pricing model is noted as high, and demand exists for better tutorials and documentation.

What are the key features of Checkmarx One?

Comprehensive Integration: Seamlessly connects with SCM, CI/CD tools to streamline security workflows.
Accurate SAST and SCA: Precisely identifies vulnerabilities down to the exact line of code.
Custom Rules Configuration: Allows tailored security measures to match specific needs.
Quick Scanning: Provides fast analysis to speed up the development process.
Automated Code Remediation: Helps in efficiently fixing code vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect in reviews?

Improved Security: Enhances code safety, reducing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Effective False Positivity Management: Optimizes time spent on genuine issues.
Enhanced Development Processes: Integrates smoothly to boost secure coding initiatives.
Comprehensive Language Support: Facilitates scanning in multiple programming languages, accommodating diverse needs.

Industries implement Checkmarx One for secure coding compliance and vulnerability management across varying environments, choosing between cloud and on-premises deployment based on requirements. Its extensive language support and integration with DevSecOps practices make it a popular choice for organizations aiming to enhance software security.

Checkmarx

Legit Security offers comprehensive solutions for managing software security risks, ensuring efficient code integration, risk reduction, and policy adherence through centralized controls and robust integration with existing tools.

Legit Security provides organizations with a powerful platform for enhancing software security. It offers a unified control panel that highlights high-risk findings and enhances security posture with risk scoring. By facilitating seamless integration with existing tools, it promotes a security shift-left approach. Centralized management helps enforce policy adherence while secret management capabilities add another layer of security. Despite some false positives in secret detection, Legit collaborates with engineering teams to ensure secure code integration.

What are the key features of Legit Security?

Noise Reduction: Minimizes noise from scanning tools for increased efficiency.
Risk Scoring: Highlights high-risk findings to prioritize security efforts.
Unified Control Panel: Centralizes oversight for improved policy enforcement.
Seamless Integration: Works with existing tools to reduce security risks.
Secret Management: Ensures secure handling of sensitive information.

What benefits should be considered when evaluating Legit Security?

Comprehensive Visibility: Offers end-to-end insights into the software development lifecycle.
Security Shift-left: Facilitates early security integration for proactive risk management.
Partnership with Engineering Teams: Promotes collaborative secure code implementation.
Responsive Enhancement Requests: Reflects adaptability to user feedback for continuous improvement.

In industries dealing with sensitive data and complex code deliveries, Legit Security is implemented to manage the entire software development lifecycle. Organizations utilize it for compliance, integrating it with other scanning tools to bolster code supply chain security and application security management. In the wake of incidents like the SolarWinds breach, the importance of securing the software delivery pipeline has been underscored, positioning Legit Security as a crucial component in protecting against similar threats.

Legit Security

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

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

Google, NYSE, Kraft-Hienz, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and many other large enterprise and Fortune 500 customers. Learn more by going to: https://www.legitsecurity.com/...

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Legit Security

June 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Legit Security

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Legit Security and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. Legit Security report.

See our list of best Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) 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.