Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Checkmarx One vs SUSE NeuVector 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 Container Security
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)
SUSE NeuVector
Ranking in Container Security
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 2.3%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SUSE NeuVector is 2.1%, down from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One2.3%
SUSE NeuVector2.1%
Other95.6%
Container Security
 

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.
Danie Joubert - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at ProQuanta
Good value for money; great for policy management
Our model of deployment for this solution is on-premises. For people looking into this solution and trying to use it for the first time, I'd say make your life easier by using the SUSE product as well on top of your community scale stack. That makes your integration points a lot easier and smoother. I would also say during your initial setup, make sure that your clusters are already in terms of the capabilities with the version required. I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this rating is that what they offer is solid, but they could expand their service and add more features just to make more things integrated into an enterprise itself.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"Overall, I use Checkmarx One as a strategic control point to improve developer velocity while strengthening application security across the full software lifecycle."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"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."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
 

Cons

"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"Meta data is always needed."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"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."
"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"Using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features between two clusters and could be improved."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"However, I found that the support in Egypt was not very qualified, and there was a need to upgrade to a higher support layer to solve my issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."
"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)."
"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."
"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"The price of SUSE NeuVector is low. There is an additional cost for support."
"The solution's pricing could be better. The cost of a subscription is calculated on the basis of work."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
 

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 do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
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...
What needs improvement with NeuVector?
One area for improvement is NeuVector's ability to import CVEs from different sources. Additionally, using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features be...
What is your primary use case for NeuVector?
In my company, I am looking to deploy a container security runtime solution.
 

Also Known As

No data available
NeuVector
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Figo, Clear Review, Arvato Bertelsmann, Experian, Chime
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. SUSE NeuVector and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.