No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmarx One vs Qwiet AI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Application Security Tools
2nd
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (15th), Container Security (14th), 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 (2nd)
Qwiet AI
Ranking in Application Security Tools
36th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
35th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.2%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qwiet AI is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One9.2%
Qwiet AI0.9%
Other89.9%
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.
SS
Senior Director of Engineering - Information Security at Apna
Effectively in identify and fix bugs early in the development lifecycle
When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Previously, security professionals had to spend a lot of time and effort running around, asking people to fix issues in their products, architectures, code, and even networks. With ShiftLeft, everything becomes robust and secure from within. Instead of relying on external measures like Web Application Firewalls (WAF) that are applied from the outside in, ShiftLeft takes a proactive approach. It helps prevent issues from arising in the first place, making it much easier for both security teams and developers. It's also cost-effective because you don't have to constantly go back, make changes to the code, and then push it again. Writing secure code from the start ensures that there are no vulnerabilities when it goes live. So, I would say the main features of ShiftLeft are its cost-effectiveness and ease of adaptability or use.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Providing the scanning ability that shows the errors at the source code level is critical to have effective development of any critical application."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"In my opinion, Checkmarx gives better results, and its protection is better than SonarQube."
"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."
"We have used this product to verify the dev department's code in order to minimize security holes."
"We are using Checkmarx for analyzing threats."
"It is a stable product."
"When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness."
 

Cons

"I can't create a business case with multiple-factor authentication."
"Unfortunately, Checkmarx doesn't do any automated backups which is quite inconvenient."
"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"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."
"Meta data is always needed."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"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."
"Having support from senior management is crucial in making it mandatory for teams to collaborate with the security team throughout the development process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"It's relatively expensive."
"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."
"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."
"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"We're using a commercial version of Checkmarx, and we paid for the solution for one year. The price is high and could be reduced."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
5%
Retailer
15%
Construction Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
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 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 AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
ShiftLeft
 

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 SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: May 2026.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.