Checkmarx One vs Wallarm NG WAF comparison

Checkmarx and Wallarm are both solutions in the API Security category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while Wallarm is ranked #13. Checkmarx holds a 5.2% mindshare in APIS, compared to Wallarm’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Wallarm users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

18,784 Views
564 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Wallarm NG WAF

Read 5 Wallarm NG WAF reviews

914 Views
402 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Wallarm NG WAF

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Checkmarx One and Wallarm NG WAF compete in the cybersecurity domain, with Checkmarx One being favored for pricing and customer support, while Wallarm NG WAF is recognized for its advanced runtime application security features.

Features:Checkmarx One provides source code scanning, seamless vulnerability identification, and robust integration with development environments. Wallarm NG WAF offers strong bot attack protection, real-time threat mitigation, and adaptive security with dynamic updates.

Room for Improvement:Checkmarx One could enhance runtime security capabilities, expand its threat intelligence, and further optimize real-time protection. Wallarm NG WAF may benefit from improved service responsiveness, refined user interface design, and enhanced integration with CI/CD pipelines.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:Checkmarx One excels with easy deployment and reliable customer service, offering seamless integration into CI/CD pipelines. Wallarm NG WAF provides flexible deployment across cloud and on-premise environments but faces challenges in service responsiveness.

Pricing and ROI:Checkmarx One is known for its competitive pricing, offering discounts for long-term use, resulting in a strong ROI through effective code security management. Wallarm NG WAF may have higher upfront costs but delivers a strong ROI by reducing long-term risks with its adaptive security measures.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. Wallarm NG WAF Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Wallarm NG WAF

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,311 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:

Categories and Ranking

Checkmarx One

Ranking in API Security

3rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (16th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

Wallarm NG WAF

Ranking in API Security

13th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Application Firewall (WAF) (40th)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 5.2%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Wallarm NG WAF is 3.9%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Security Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	5.2%
Wallarm NG WAF	3.9%
Other	90.9%

API Security

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

it_user796242

Information Security Engineer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees

Helps us to monitor attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them

Set up Wallarm as a reverse proxy. Do not replace your web server. Use Wallarm first in monitoring mode, then learn from Wallarm which type of request is false positive and which type of request is not. This process takes a couple of weeks for very highly-loaded web applications (few millions of unique visitors in one month). Then you can turn Wallarm into blocking mode and everything will be fine. Do not forget to build a monitoring system, the wave, and API for it. Before we started using Wallarm, I already knew Ivan (CEO) and Stepan (COO) from a couple of years before. Ivan had his own security company and Stepan was working on a Russian security magazine called Xakep. They told us that they wanted to create a new WAF and already had a working version of it. They asked me to test it. We did tests, and it was really good. After few month after testing, we signed an agreement. Our choice was made not because we knew these guys for a long time, but because the product was really cool and we were glad to start using it as one of the first on the market!

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

"The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code."

"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."

"If you really are worried about your business, i.e. about your development sites or development environments, Checkmarx is a great solution."

"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."

"They have some of the best features which make the product wonderful."

"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."

"The initial setup was very easy."

"Once you implement Checkmarx One, you can be sure that you're getting value from the solution almost immediately because Checkmarx One also handles false positives very effectively, saving you time and saving your developers time."

More Checkmarx One pros

"Perimeter control and active vulnerability scanner are the most valuable features."

"With active threat detection, we are no longer over-swamped with tons of useless events."

"The most powerful feature is the ability to first learn what type of query to make to your web application when it is attacked and what type of query creates a false positive to your app."

"Helps us to monitor situation in regards to attacks to our sites and prevents a lot of them."

"Vulnerability scanner and WAF are valuable features."

"They are the only solution that fits our success criteria and business objectives: WAF must have a low (<5%) false negative rate and be ready to protect from all well-known web attacks."

Cons

"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. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."

"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."

"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy."

"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."

"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."

"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."

"The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better."

"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."

More Checkmarx One cons

"There were several stability issues during the first pilot."

"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm."

"Technical support is 6 or 7 out of 10. Sometimes we have had trouble with communication and understanding."

"The biggest problem for us was the stability and speed using the first version of Wallarm. Now, it is fine."

"It needs more customization in PDF reports."

"Wallarm uses a learning mechanism to detect attacks and to avoid false positives. If Wallarm blocks some illegitimate request, then you can go to the management console and mark this request as false positive, but sometimes this does not work properly."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is costly."

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

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."

"We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year. I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year)."

"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."

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

"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."

"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"Pricing must be cheaper than the competition and the licensing must be good."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

13%

Government

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Insurance 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

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.

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 additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

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 it is possible to set it in the SAST portal to scan the repositories automaticall...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 43% 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 3% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Imperva Application Security Platform vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Cequence Security vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Akamai API Security vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 10% of the time

Venusense Web Application Firewall vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 8% of the time

Salt Security vs Wallarm NG WAF

Compared 8% of the time

More Wallarm NG WAF Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

March 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Web Application Firewall (WAF)

March 2026

Download Wallarm NG WAF product report

Also Known As

No data available

Wallarm NG-WAF

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

Wallarm NG WAF provides advanced security by integrating machine learning, making it essential for modern web applications. It offers protection against sophisticated threats and automates many processes.

Wallarm NG WAF leverages AI-driven technology to deliver robust security measures. It helps in defending web applications from cybersecurity threats with enhanced threat detection and response capabilities. Beyond vulnerability insights, Wallarm enhances security protocols, scales with growing online demands, and ensures comprehensive threat coverage, fostering a safer web environment.

What are the key features of Wallarm NG WAF?

AI-Powered Threat Detection: Identifies and mitigates sophisticated attacks efficiently.
Automated Security Updates: Continuously updates defense strategies without manual intervention.
Flexible Deployment: Easily integrates across cloud, on-premise, and hybrid setups.
Scalability: Adapts to growing traffic volumes with consistent protection.
Detailed Reporting: Provides comprehensive analytics on web security posture.

What benefits can users expect from Wallarm NG WAF?

Increased Security: Enhances threat detection and reduces vulnerabilities.
Operational Efficiency: Reduces manual intervention with automated tasks.
Cost-Effectiveness: Optimizes security expenditure by preventing potential breaches.
Time Savings: Automates repetitive actions, saving valuable time for IT teams.

In industries like finance, e-commerce, and healthcare, Wallarm NG WAF is implemented to ensure data protection and compliance with stringent security standards. Its adaptability allows it to meet industry-specific requirements, offering specialized configurations tailored to each sector's unique demands.

Wallarm

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

Panasonic. Miro. Rappi. Wargaming. Gannett. Omio. Acronis. Workforce Software. Tipalti. SEMRush.

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Wallarm NG WAF

February 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Wallarm NG WAF

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Wallarm NG WAF and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. Wallarm NG WAF report.

See our list of best API Security vendors.

We monitor all API Security 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.