We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Contrast Security Assess 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 has all the features we need."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"In our most critical applications, we have a deep dive in the code evaluation, which was something we usually did with periodic vulnerability assessments, code reviews, etc. Now, we have real time access to it. It's something that has greatly enhanced our code's quality. We have actually embedded a KPI in regards to the improvement of our code shell. For example, Contrast provides a baseline where libraries and the usability of the code are evaluated, and they produce a score. We always aim to improve that score. On a quarterly basis, we have added this to our KPIs."
"It is a stable solution...Contrast Security Assess is one of the first players in this market, so they have experience and customers, especially abroad. Overall, it's a good product."
"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."
"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."
"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."
"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away. In our internal comparisons among different tools, Contrast consistently finds more impactful vulnerabilities, and also identifies vulnerabilities that are nearly guaranteed to be there, meaning that the chance of false positives is very low."
"The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of."
"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"The product's retesting part needs improvement. The tool also needs improvement in the suggestions provided for fixing vulnerabilities. It relies more on documentation rather than on quick fixes."
"To instrument an agent, it has to be running on a type of application technology that the agent recognizes and understands. It's excellent when it works. If we're using an application that is using an unsupported technology, then we can't instrument it at all. We do use PHP and Contrast presently doesn't support that, although it's on their roadmap. My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."
"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."
"Contrast Security Assess covers a wide range of applications like .NET Framework, Java, PSP, Node.js, etc. But there are some like Ubuntu and the .NET Core which are not covered. They have it in their roadmap to have these agents. If they have that, we will have complete coverage."
"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."
"Contrast's ability to support upgrades on the actual agents that get deployed is limited. Our environment is pretty much entirely Java. There are no updates associated with that. You have to actually download a new version of the .jar file and push that out to your servers where your app is hosted. That can be quite cumbersome from a change-management perspective."
"The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."
"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Contrast Security Assess is ranked 30th in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Contrast Security Assess is rated 8.8. 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 Contrast Security Assess writes "We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Contrast Security Assess is most compared with Veracode, Seeker, Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan and OWASP Zap. See our Checkmarx One vs. Contrast Security Assess report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.