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."The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"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."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) improves the resilience and quality of the application itself, the speed and the user experience for the application. The data that the users need from the application is actually acquired faster. So, it provides faster data acquisition."
"It also has an AVR feature: application, visibility, and recording. It's good for customers looking for what is actually happening in their network and where the latency is."
"It is very intuitive, easy to deploy, and manage."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We plan to create packages of services from which it will be possible to build comprehensive tailor-made solutions."
"The support from F5 BIG-IP LTM is good."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."
"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."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"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."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"I would like F5 to incorporate the ability to create your own custom roles and customised permissions within the product set. I have seen many customers wanting to give a certain level of access for the purposes of out-of-hours servicing to out-of-hours staff or teams that fulfill an operations type role."
"The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models."
"Initial setup is tricky, if you do not understand the design of this product."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"I'm not very sure about the security with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have our own private data center, but we are going to migrate our private data center into the Azure cloud environment. Security will then be a major concern when we migrate our own whole infrastructure to the public cloud."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
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 "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". 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.
