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.
"It is a stable product."
"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 solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"The most important feature is the static scanning analysis, and the reason is that it can tell us vulnerability in that code, right before we go ahead and push something to production or provide something to a client... Dynamic scanning actually hits our Web applications, to try to detect any well known Web application vulnerabilities as well."
"Vulnerability Management and mitigation recommendations help with resolution of issues found, prior to deployment to production."
"Scanning of .war and .jar is key for us."
"I like the static scanning, and Veracode's interface is excellent. The dashboard is easy to navigate."
"It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail."
"The dependency graph visualization provides the ability to see nested dependencies within libraries for pinpointing vulnerabilities."
"The static analysis gives you deep insights into problems."
"The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end."
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"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."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"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."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"Static scanning takes a long time, so you need to patiently wait for the scan to achieve. I also think the software could be more accurate. It isn't 100 percent, so you shouldn't completely rely on Veracode. You need to manually verify its findings."
"Because our application is large, it takes a long time to upload and scan."
"If you schedule two parallel scans under the same project, one of them will be a failure."
"It takes a lot of time to scan the applications. They can make them faster and provide an option to scan a specific portion of the app. Such a feature would be very helpful."
"I would like Veracode to also have the ability to fix these flaws in a future release."
"The false positive rates were quite high in our case."
"There is room for improvement in documentation."
"Software developers are always thinking about the next big thing but lose sight of what's happening right now. If you have an idea for a feature request, you must submit it to be voted on by the Veracode community. I don't like this. No one will look at it unless enough people vote for it."
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, Fortify on Demand, Snyk, OWASP Zap and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Checkmarx One vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.