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

Checkmarx SAST vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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 SAST
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
21st
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx SAST is 1.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.0%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Cuneyt KALPAKOGLU Phd. - PeerSpot reviewer
Identifying code vulnerabilities swiftly with no need to complete the coding and offers good security
The primary use case of Checkmarx SAST is application security, specifically static application security testing. It is essential and the root of this concept I did not find measurable information about the financial benefits or return on investment. The most important competitive advantage and…
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."
"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."
"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."
"It was easy to learn."
"The intercepting feature is the most valuable."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional has an intercept tab that helps us to scan our APIs, set the response, and request errors."
"The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"The most valuable feature of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is the Burp Intruder tool."
"With the Extender Tab, if you know how to code then you can create a plugin and add it to Burp."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is one of the best user-friendly solutions for getting the proxy set up."
"The solution is stable."
 

Cons

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability."
"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."
"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."
"It would be good if the solution could give us more details about what exactly is defective."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad."
"The tool is very expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"This solution requires a license. It is expensive but you receive a lot of functionality for the price."
"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. We only need to pay for the annual subscription. I rate the pricing five out of ten."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is expensive compared to other tools."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"The pricing of the solution is cost-effective and is best suited for small and medium-sized businesses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?
We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.
What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?
We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue.
What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?
We integrated Checkmarx with our pipelines in Jenkins. We had it fully automated for static security scanning to protect our company against attacks.
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.
 

Also Known As

SAST
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx SAST vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.