We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"It is a stable product."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"F5 Big-IP Local Traffic Manager has better modular features especially LTM, which according to the clients, is very beneficial. Most of the users opt for a combination of big IP LTM and WAF which helps them to leverage application load balancing and enhance application security many-fold."
"Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule."
"Valuable features include Link Controller and Server Load Balancer."
"Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"It helps us recognize sessions from certain IPs that are authorized to manage the application. This is a function we haven't found anywhere else."
"In terms of stability, it is stable."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"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."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"Meta data is always needed."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"The synchronization does works fairly well. However, if I were to make changes, I would make it easier to start the sync process."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"A more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users."
"Lacking in free training to help users understand the product more, so they would know how to correctly use it. Like other vendors and their products, becoming more proactive is an area for improvement."
"In terms of pricing, it could be more competitive."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"I think the logging could be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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 F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Checkmarx One vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
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.