Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

Checkmarx and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while OWASP is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.2. Checkmarx holds a 10.4% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.4% 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

18,784 Views
14,276 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,440 Views
6,845 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...

Read 65 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional reviews

5,991 Views
3,595 Comparison Views

98% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

OWASP Zap

PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One, OWASP Zap, and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

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

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,728 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:

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.4%, down from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.4%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.4%, up from 2.0% 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	10.4%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	2.4%
OWASP Zap	3.4%
Other	83.8%

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

Moti Huberman

Penetration Tester & Information Security Expert at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees

Dedicated browser and repeater have improved my proxy testing and manual vulnerability checks

I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something like this because otherwise, nowadays we have to do it manually. Perhaps they can automate it a bit more. Perhaps they could add some automation to things, to see what we do manually, which it has the tools to do manually, and perhaps enable with a click of a button to do things automatically. I'm not too sure which, but I'm sure they can from a product management point of view, do things that we need to do two, three, or four steps manually regarding specific testing. For instance, we want to check something specific if it's this or if it's that. Perhaps to define it once and have it more automatic, perhaps.

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 shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."

"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 most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."

"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."

"We have been using this product extensively for a lot of applications to identify as well as employ proper remediation which makes the application secure including information issues which might get neglected with a manual code review process."

"Overall, I use Checkmarx One as a strategic control point to improve developer velocity while strengthening application security across the full software lifecycle."

"It is very useful because it fits our requirements, it is also easy to use, it is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."

"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."

More Checkmarx One pros

"The product has improved our application security engagement, helps with our in-house review so we sometimes don't need an external third-party tester, and once we get it from OWASP Zap, we have an idea of the inherent vulnerabilities in the application, which is a plus to save cost and improve our application accuracy practice."

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"The solution enables a person to add the certificate and check the queries, to see if there are any that are undefined, so a person can have a list of the types of queries and can trace them."

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

"They offer free access to some other tools."

More OWASP Zap pros

"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."

"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."

"The initial setup is simple."

"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."

"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."

"This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps."

"It is a time-saver application."

"The solution is very user-friendly, and the way they do the research and keep their profile up to date is great, as they identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional pros

Cons

"From an administrative standpoint, I would rate Checkmarx with a five out of ten."

"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."

"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."

"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."

"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."

"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."

"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."

"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."

More Checkmarx One cons

"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."

"There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores."

"I prefer Burp Suite to OWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

"Deployment is somewhat complicated."

"The port scanner is a little too slow."

"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."

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

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."

More OWASP Zap cons

"The price could be better. The rest is fine."

"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."

"As with most automated security tools, there is still a high false positive issue."

"The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot."

"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."

"I am from Brazil. The currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep. It is almost six to one. It would be good if it can be sold in the local currency, and its price is cheaper for us."

"Request handling capacity, it do not handle huge chuck of requests as it freezes."

"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."

"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 pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"It is an expensive solution."

"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."

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

"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)."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

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

"This solution is open source and free."

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

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

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."

"This solution requires a license. It is expensive but you receive a lot of functionality for the price."

"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is neither cheap nor expensive."

"There are multiple versions available of PortSwigger Burp Suite, such as enterprise, commercial, professional, and beginners."

"It has a yearly license. I am satisfied with its price."

"We have one license. The price is very nominal."

"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."

"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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

885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Government

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Government

10%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Computer Software Company

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	21

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	14
Large Enterprise	35

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 ...

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

What needs improvement with Checkmarx?

One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If i...

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan web...

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 do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?

The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?

The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.

See all answers

What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?

I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 42% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Coverity Static vs Checkmarx One

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Snyk vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 12% of the time

Acunetix vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 6% of the time

Software Risk Manager ASPM vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 6% of the time

SonarQube vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

Compared 3% of the time

More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

March 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Buyer's Guide

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

March 2026

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report

Download PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional product report

Also Known As

No data available

Burp

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

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

Burp Suite Professional, by PortSwigger, is the world’s leading toolkit for web security testing. Over 52,000 users worldwide, across all industries and organization sizes, trust Burp Suite Professional to find more vulnerabilities, faster. With expertly-engineered manual and automated tooling, you're able to test smarter - not harder.

PortSwigger is the web security company that is enabling the world to secure the web. Over 50,000 security engineers rely on our software and expertise to secure their world.

PortSwigger

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

Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.