Checkmarx One vs NowSecure comparison

Checkmarx and NowSecure are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.7, while NowSecure is ranked #37. Checkmarx holds a 9.8% mindshare in SAST, compared to NowSecure’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NowSecure users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 70 Checkmarx One reviews

20,761 Views
14,081 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

NowSecure

Read 1 NowSecure review

373 Views
231 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

NowSecure

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

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

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,900 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

Checkmarx One

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

3rd

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (3rd), Vulnerability Management (24th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th)

NowSecure

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

37th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (18th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.8%, down from 12.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NowSecure is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kesharwani

Manager, Engineering at 7-Eleven

Provides good security analysis and security identification within the source code

We integrate Checkmarx into our software development cycle using GitLab's CI/CD pipeline. Checkmark has been the most helpful for us in the development stage. The solution's incremental scanning feature has impacted our development speed. The solution's vulnerability detection is around 80% to 90% accurate. I would recommend Checkmarx to other users because it is one of the good tools for doing security analysis and security identification within the source code. Overall, I rate Checkmarx a nine out of ten.

Read full review

AnirudhNair

Quality Assurance and Analyst Intern at a university with 201-500 employees

Scalable and reliable, but dynamic analysis needs improvement

I would advise others when testing using NowSecure to do secondary tests with other tools. For example, set it up in the local environment and recheck what the results of the reports are. Since the dynamic results are less accurate, I would suggest using static analysis. I rate NowSecure a seven out of ten.

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 identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."

"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."

"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."

"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."

"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."

"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."

"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."

"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."

More Checkmarx One pros

"The most valuable feature is the ability to download an application without actually putting in the APK. It gives us an option to put the APK in if we want to but we can download it from the App Store and Play Store."

Cons

"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."

"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."

"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."

"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."

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

"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."

"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."

"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."

More Checkmarx One cons

"In this solution, there are two kinds of testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. There needs some improvement in testing with dynamic analysis because I have found it is not accurate"

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is the right price for quality delivery."

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."

"The solution is costly."

"Checkmarx is not a cheap scanning tool, but none of the security tools are cheap. Checkmarx is a powerful scanning tool, and it’s essential to have one of these products."

"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's relatively expensive."

"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."

"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."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,900 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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.

See all answers

What do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Checkmarx One

Compared 39% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 12% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Checkmarx One

Compared 6% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 5% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Checkmarx One

Compared 5% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Data Theorem API Secure vs NowSecure

Compared 39% of the time

Veracode vs NowSecure

Compared 36% of the time

More NowSecure Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

May 2025

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Testing Tools

May 2025

Download NowSecure product report

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

NowSecure experts have conducted advanced pen testing for some of the world's most demanding organizations - including banks, insurance companies, government agencies, healthcare organizations, retail conglomerates, high-tech businesses, and more. Mobile apps are prone to sensitive data leakages and attacks, yet a manual test for just one app can take several weeks. To enable faster, more frequent testing, we built a test engine that successfully automates repeatable and time-consuming mobile appsec testing, remediation and reporting tasks. The result - the foundation of the NowSecure platform, which significantly reduces testing time and costs without compromising full depth of security coverage.

NowSecure

Sample Customers

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

Vaporstream, FIS, MEA Financial, Silent Circle, Capital One, Citi, EY, EMC, Emerson, Kaiser Permanente, The Home Depot, Humana, Shell, Kellogg's, TD Bank, VMware

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

April 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,900 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.