We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and GitLab 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 reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"I like GitLab from the CI/CD perspective. It is much easier to set up CI/CD and then integrate with other tools."
"It is a speedy platform compared to the others I have used. I have also enjoyed using the platform as this solution offers a good user experience."
"GitLab is very well-organized and easy to use. Also, it offers most features that customers need."
"We're only using the basic features of GitLab and haven't used any advanced features. The solution works fine, so that's what we like about GitLab. We're party using GitHub and GitLab. We have a GitHub server, while we use GitLab locally or only within our team, and it works okay. We don't have any significant problems with the solution. We also found the straightforward setup, stability, and scalability of GitLab valuable."
"We use the Git repository and tagging feature. We are a product-based company and use this solution to move to a forward or backward tag."
"The most valuable features of Gitlab are integration with CIE and the ability to rapidly deploy solutions, projects, and applications. It is very easy to use, and there are no complaints."
"This product is always evolving, and they listen to the customers."
"GitLab is a solution for source code management, container registry, pipelines, testing, and deployment."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"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."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"It is an expensive solution."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"The initial setup was quite challenging because it takes some time to understand how to pull out or push the code."
"It's more related to the supporting layer of features, such as issue management and issue tracking. We tend to always use, for example, Jira next to it. That doesn't mean that GitLab should build something similar to Jira because that will always have its place, but they could grow a bit in those kinds of supporting features. I see some, for example, covering ITSM on a DevOps team level, and that's one of the things that I and my current client would find really helpful. It's understandably not going to be their main focus and their core, and whenever you are with a company that needs a bit more advanced features on that specific topic, you're probably still going to integrate with another tool like Jira Service Management, for example. However, some basic features on things like that could be really helpful."
"Reporting could be improved."
"I would like configuration of a YML file to be done via UI rather than a code file."
"It is a little complex to set up the pipelines within the solution."
"It would be better if there weren't any outages. There are occasions where we usually see a lot of outages using GitLab. It happens at least once a week or something like that. Whatever pipelines you're running, to check the logs, you need to have a different set of tools like Argus or something like that. If you have pipelines running on GitLab, you need a separate service deployed to view the logs, which is kind of a pain. If the logs can be used conveniently on GitLab, that would be definitely helpful. I'm not talking about the CI/CD pipelines but the back-end services and microservices deployed over GitLab. To view the logs for those microservices, you need to have separate log viewers, which is kind of a pain."
"We'd like to see better integration with the Atlassian ecosystem."
"Some of the scripts that we encountered in GitLab were not fully functional and threw up errors."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while GitLab 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 GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify WebInspect, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton. See our Checkmarx One vs. GitLab report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors, and best DevSecOps 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.