We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Trend Vision One - Cloud Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc)."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes."
"The product helps us understand our environment better."
"The most valuable part of Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is its dashboard, as it's simple. It's easy to manage, and you can better control the solution."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security's best features are security analysis, remote access security, and driver security."
"Virtual patching is one of the key features, which is executed with their IPS."
"The the most valuable feature is the scanning engine. It does not impact server performance. It's very lightweight."
"I really like Trend Vision One - Cloud Security's dashboard."
"The storage and computing features are valuable."
"The stability is quite good."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"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)."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"They should provide a way for users to see violations for specific compliance."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security could improve connections with different types of authentication and user groups concerning cloud services."
"There are also some loopholes because it's a new product that they have recently migrated to the cloud. We do see some issues with the policies we have assigned when it comes to a particular account. There are some issues with system support, such as a particular server kernel version that is not supported."
"The initial setup is easy for someone who operates container platforms on a daily basis. However, it could be difficult for those coming purely from informational security or another field of an IT."
"The initial setup can be complex for the inexperienced."
"The local agent should be able to show more logs. At present, the logs are only available from the web console and not from the local agent."
"The licensing model could be improved. To gain full coverage, you need to spend more to buy subscriptions for each kind of service they offer. It will start to be pricey if you want full coverage."
"The firewall configuration should have been automated based on the understanding of the application, utilities, and protocols."
More Trend Vision One - Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is ranked 12th in Application Security Tools with 17 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trend Vision One - Cloud Security writes "We can quickly deploy cloud conformity, provides good visibility, and control". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, AWS GuardDuty, Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Orca Security. See our Checkmarx One vs. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
