We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Sonatype Repository Firewall 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 solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"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 most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time."
"Another thing that I like about Sonatype is that if you download something today, and five days from today it becomes vulnerable, it will notify you."
"The product's network and intrusion protection features are valuable. It also has rules and compliance features for security."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"The resolutions should also be provided. For example, if the user faces any problem regarding an installation due to the internal security policies of their company, there should be a resolution offered."
"Meta data is always needed."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"The tool needs to improve its file systems. The product should also include zero test feature."
"What I don't like is the lack of an option to pick up the phone and call someone for support. That is something they need to improve on. They need to have a professional services package, or they need to include that option with their services."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Sonatype Repository Firewall is ranked 34th in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Sonatype Repository Firewall is rated 8.4. 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 Sonatype Repository Firewall writes "You will get clean code every time, and that's a great achievement". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Sonatype Repository Firewall is most compared with JFrog Xray, Cisco Secure Firewall, Black Duck, GitHub and Veracode. See our Checkmarx One vs. Sonatype Repository Firewall report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.