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 most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"One of the greatest things about F5 Load Balancer is that it provides additional capability for handling huge workloads and routing them to an SAP or non-SAP application. It is capable of supporting a large amount of user workload and application connectivity workload. This was the main reason why we chose F5."
"The solution is robust and reliable."
"We plan to create packages of services from which it will be possible to build comprehensive tailor-made solutions."
"One of the best features of the solution is the operating system."
"Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful."
"We enjoy its overall ease of use."
"It has so many features. First of all, it has a full proxy architecture, it has multiple modules. The best feature is the WAF, the web application firewall module. It also has cashing type capabilities. It has all kinds of load-balancing algorithms based on your IT requirements."
"In my team, we work in a very agile environment and the solutions from BIG-IP, including BIG-IP WAF, suit us well when developing and serving our applications."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"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."
"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 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."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"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."
"The one gap I saw was that pure LBN integration is a little tricky. The insertion of F5 in LBN is a little tricky. They need to work on something, on products by which they can insert F5 in any sort of cloud environment."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"Not everything is intuitive."
"The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager."
"This is a very expensive solution."
"LTM's cloud capabilities could be improved. Cloud providers all offer load balancing, but you can't get the same level of security. F5's cloud service is still not on par with its on-prem service."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
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 HAProxy. 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.
