We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Imperva Web Application Firewall 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."
"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."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc)."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"It mitigates all of the availabilities of risks around web applications."
"We can prevent attacks or issues even before they happen."
"The tool's profiling feature maps all the web application directories and related components on the profile directory. It has improved the security of my client's website applications."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well."
"The solution is stable."
"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 validation process needs to be sped up."
"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."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
"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."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"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 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."
"The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them."
"The support for the on-premises version needs improvement."
"I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one."
"The user interface could be better."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."
"I think that better bot protection is needed in this solution."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"I don't really use it and therefore can't speak to areas of improvement."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 45 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Imperva Web Application Firewall 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 Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door. See our Checkmarx One vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall 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.
