We performed a comparison between Checkmarx and GitGuardian Internal Monitoring 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 only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"It enables us to identify leaks that happened in the past and remediate current leaks as they happen in near real-time. When I say "near real-time," I mean within minutes. These are industry-leading remediation timelines for credential leaks. Previously, it might have taken companies years to get credentials detected or remediated. We can do it in minutes."
"It actually creates an incident ticket for us. We can now go end-to-end after a secret has been identified, to track down who owns the repository and who is responsible for cleaning it up."
"When they give you a description of what happened, it's really easy to follow and to retest. And the ability to retest is something that you don't have in other solutions. If a secret was detected, you can retest if it is still there. It will show you if it is in the history."
"GitGuardian has pretty broad detection capabilities. It covers all of the types of secrets that we've been interested in... [Yet] The "detector" concept, which identifies particular categories or types of secrets, allows an organization to tweak and tailor the configuration for things that are specific to its environment. This is highly useful if you're particularly worried about a certain type of secret and it can help focus attention, as part of early remediation efforts."
"You can also assign tasks to specific teams or people to complete, such as assigning something to the "blue team" or saying that this person needs to do this, and that person needs to do that. That is a great feature because you can actually manage your team internally in GitGuardian."
"Presently, we find the pre-commit hooks more useful."
"GitGuardian has also helped us develop a security-minded culture. We're serious about shift left and getting better about code security. I think a lot of people are getting more mindful about what a secret is."
"GitGuardian has helped to increase our security team's productivity. Now, we don't need to call the developers all the time and ask what they are working on. I feel the solution bridged the gap between our team and the developers, which is really great. I feel that we need that in our company, since some of the departments are just doing whatever and you don't know what they are doing. I think GitGuardian does a good job of bridging the gap. It saves us about 10 hours per week."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"Checkmarx could improve the speed of the scans."
"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."
"One improvement that I'd like to see is a cleaner for Splunk logs. It would be nice to have a middle man for anything we send or receive from Splunk forwarders. I'd love to see it get cleaned by GitGuardian or caught to make sure we don't have any secrets getting committed to Splunk logs."
"Right now, we are waiting for improvement in the RBAC support for GitGuardian."
"It would be nice if they supported detecting PII or had some kind of data loss prevention feature."
"Other solutions have a live chat feature that provides instant results. Waiting for an agent to reply to an email is less ideal than an instant conversation with a support employee. That's a complaint so minor I almost hesitate to mention it."
"We have been somewhat confused by the dashboard at times."
"I would like to see more fine-grained access controls when tickets are assigned for incidents. I would like the ability to provide more controls to the team leads or the product managers so that they can drive what we, the AppSec team, are doing."
"There are some features that are lacking in GitGuardian. The more we grow and the more engineers we have, the more it will become difficult to assign an incident because the assignment is not automatic. I know they are working on that and we are waiting for it."
"An area for improvement is the front end for incidents. The user experience in this area could be much better."
More GitGuardian Internal Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while GitGuardian Internal Monitoring is ranked 8th in Application Security Tools with 16 reviews. Checkmarx is rated 7.6, while GitGuardian Internal Monitoring is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Supports different languages, has excellent support, and easily expands". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitGuardian Internal Monitoring writes "Even before a commit gets to GitHub, the CLI identifies secrets within the code and prevents the commit". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas GitGuardian Internal Monitoring is most compared with SonarQube, Cycode, Snyk and Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention. See our Checkmarx vs. GitGuardian Internal Monitoring report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
