We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"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 value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"The interface is easy to use."
"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"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."
"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"There are too many false positives."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. 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 OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Application Defender, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Fortify WebInspect. See our Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
