We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Polyspace Code Prover 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."It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"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."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"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."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"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."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"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 speed of the scans."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. 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 Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and Parasoft SOAtest. See our Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover 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.