Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap comparison

Checkmarx and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1, while OWASP is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 9.7% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.1% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

22,245 Views
15,127 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

8,361 Views
7,692 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Checkmarx One and OWASP Zap compete in the software security category. Checkmarx One has an upper hand in terms of customer service and ease of deployment, while OWASP Zap is preferred for its feature set and cost-effectiveness.

Features: Checkmarx One offers comprehensive scanning capabilities, robust pricing, and integration options. OWASP Zap provides an extensive feature set, open-source flexibility, and strong customization possibilities.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One needs enhanced response times, better report generation, and more efficient support channels. OWASP Zap requires improved documentation, a streamlined setup process, and more user-friendly updates.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One is recognized for straightforward deployment and commendable customer service. OWASP Zap, while having a steeper learning curve, benefits from strong community support.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One's high setup costs are offset by strong ROI through effective vulnerability identification. OWASP Zap's free nature gives it a clear advantage in initial costs, though expertise hiring can impact perceived ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 893,438 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)

2nd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (2nd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), 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 (1st)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

15th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.7%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.1%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	9.7%
OWASP Zap	3.1%
Other	87.2%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

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

Nithin-K

Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking.

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

"It has made our organization more efficient with our whole code scan/deployment process for our software applications."

"The solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database."

"Even if there are multiple vulnerabilities in the source coding, Checkmarx is able to identify which lines need to be corrected and then proceeds to automatically remediate the situation."

"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."

"Overall, we are very satisfied with Checkmarx and it is a product that I recommend."

"We are using Checkmarx for analyzing threats."

"One of the most important tools in our building process."

"I have seen a return on investment from Checkmarx One."

More Checkmarx One pros

"If you're a company and you've got your own websites, internally and externally, it's great."

"The community support that ZAP provides me, as an open source, provides me flexibility and is convenient to use."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"The most valuable feature is the spidering because, being a security person, it is very important for me to know each and every section of that application, so we cannot afford to miss any single web page or any single link on a particular website."

"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

"This solution is providing us with value and as long as it continues to do so, we'll continue to use it."

"The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe."

"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)."

"Their licensing fees are rigid and this causes two main issues. One is a restriction in terms of scaling the product at an enterprise level."

"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."

"Presently they support micro-services, but the supporting methodology of the micro-services is not good enough at the moment."

"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."

"We can run only one project at a time."

"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."

"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."

"When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking."

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."

"The port scanner is a little too slow."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."

"The tool's pricing is fine."

"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."

"The solution is costly."

"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."

"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."

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

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

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"The tool is open-source."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"This solution is open source and free."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

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

893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Government

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	22

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 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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmarx?

One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If it is possible to set it in the SAST portal to scan the repositories automaticall...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

What needs improvement with OWASP Zap?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 37% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Checkmarx One

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 11% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

May 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

April 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Overview

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

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

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

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

April 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

893,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap report.

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.