We performed a comparison between Checkmarx vs.Veracode based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Veracode has the winning edge in this comparison. Customers are more satisfied with Veracode’s robust features, stability, and pricing model.
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools."
"The tech support has been very much on the forefront of contacting customers. They help us by making sure all the processes have been outlined and are being followed. They regularly look with us at the whole platform process."
"It's straightforward, and it does not require a lot of time. It's a straightforward platform that you can use for performing scans or mitigating issues. It has a very good user interface. FAQs are also helpful in case you are not familiar with it."
"Veracode supports a broad range of code technologies, and it can analyze large applications. Fortify takes a long time and may not be able to generate the report for larger applications. We don't have these constraints with Veracode."
"In pipeline scanning, there is a configuration that can be set with respect to the security level of the flaw. If there is a high or a critical issue, there's a way the build can be failed and blocked before going into production."
"The most valuable feature is the dynamic application security testing."
"The most valuable feature of Veracode Static Analysis is the scanning."
"I contacted the solution's technical support during the automation part, and it went well, after which I never faced any issues."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"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."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"The solution does not support Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."
"I think if they could improve the operations around accepted vulnerabilities, we would see improvements in our productivity."
"We have approximately 900 people using the solution. The solution is scalable, but there is a high cost attached to it."
"It does not have a reporting structure for an OS-based vulnerability report, whereas its peers such as Fortify and Checkmarx have this ability. Checkmarx also provides a better visibility of the code flow."
"The scans were sometimes not accurate in version 2022. There were some false positives in the vulnerability reports. We used to get false positives, and we were responsible for checking all of the alerts and determining whether they were true positives or false positives. They might have already improved it. If they have not, they can look into how to mitigate false positives."
"Maybe the pipeline scanning doesn't support enough languages. It might only support Java and Python only, so that could be improved."
"Veracode's SAST, DAST, and SCA are pretty good with respect to industry standards, but with regard to container security, they are in either beta or alpha testing. They need to get that particular feature up and running so that they take care of the container security part."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Veracode is rated 8.2. 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 Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Fortify on Demand, Snyk, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Fortify on Demand, OWASP Zap and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Checkmarx One vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors, and best Static Code Analysis 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.
SonarQube depends on completely what you configure the Rules. You will have the option of the Profile creation and can be assigned to the Projects. If you configure the project --> under them services configuration it is good to go. Proper configuration is important in the Sonat Qube. Yes, Sonarqube allows developers to delint their code before SAST.
Veracode recently introduced it. But this integration at developer Machine integration available for only JAVA coded Projets.
About the Vulnerability coverage, both are the same. OWASP TOP 10 is equal to Sans 25. sans25 is categorized with one category number and describes under that subsection. Refer to this. https://www.templarbit.com/blog/2018/02/08/owasp-top-10-vs-sans-cwe-25/
SonarQube can be used for SAST. However, based on our internal analysis, our team feel CheckMarx is better suited for Security compared to SonarQube. SoanrQube is used in day to day developer code scan and Checkmarx is used during code movement to staging or during release.