We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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."Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better 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."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"The solution has a pretty simple setup."
"The solution has a limited range of functions, which is good for small companies. This is because, in small companies, websites are less complex. They also have single services which makes the solution good enough for them. However, the most advantageous aspect of the solution is its affordable price."
"We use the solution for vulnerability assessment in respect of the application and the sites."
"The extension that it provides with the community version for the skills mapping is excellent."
"The solution has a great user interface."
"It offers very good accuracy. You can trust the results."
"The most valuable feature of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is the dashboard. It is very informative and you can receive all the information you need in one place. It's clear, well-defined, and organized. Anybody without any cybersecurity can use it."
"It is an expensive solution."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product."
"The price could be better. The rest is fine."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that."
"The scanner and crawler need to be improved."
"The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 9th in Application Security Tools with 54 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.6. 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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Rapid7 InsightAppSec. See our Checkmarx One vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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.
