Checkmarx vs. OWASP Zap

As of June 2019, Checkmarx is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 10 reviews vs OWASP Zap which is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Works well with Windows servers but no Linux support and takes too long to scan files". The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand and Veracode. OWASP Zap is most compared with PortSwigger Burp, Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner and IBM Security AppScan. See our Checkmarx vs. OWASP Zap report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Checkmarx Logo
50,948 views|20,759 comparisons
OWASP Zap Logo
22,201 views|14,892 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: May 2019.
347,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before.Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution.The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete.The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time.It is a stable product.Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report.It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are.It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences.

Read more »

The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool.This solution has improved my organization because it has made us feel safer doing frequent deployments for web applications. If we have something really big, we might get some professional company in to help us but if we're releasing small products, we will check it ourselves with Zap. It makes it easier and safer.It can be used effectively for internal auditing.The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list.It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later.Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs.​It has improved my organization with faster security tests.​The vulnerabilities that it finds, because the primary goal is to secure applications and websites.

Read more »

Cons
Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues.The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers.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.It is an expensive solution.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.I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time).Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient.

Read more »

There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap.If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning.It needs more robust reporting tools.As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this.I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word ​list, or manually created.It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap.The port scanner is a little too slow.​It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution.It is an expensive solution.Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up.We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year. I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year).Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications).

Read more »

OWASP Zap is free to use.It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use.OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate.As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out.It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
347,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
50,948
Comparisons
20,759
Reviews
9
Average Words per Review
422
Avg. Rating
8.1
Views
22,201
Comparisons
14,892
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
412
Avg. Rating
8.4
Top Comparisons
Compared 40% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 65% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Learn
Checkmarx
OWASP
Overview

Checkmarx CxSAST is a highly accurate and flexible Static Code Analysis product that allows organizations to automatically scan un-compiled / un-built code and identify hundreds of security vulnerabilities in all major coding languages. CxSAST is available as a standalone product and can be effectively integrated into the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) to streamline detection and remediation. CxSAST can be deployed on-premise in a private data center or hosted via a public cloud.

Whitepaper: I, II

Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) is a free, open-source penetration testing tool being maintained under the umbrella of the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). ZAP is designed specifically for testing web applications and is both flexible and extensible.

Offer
Learn more about Checkmarx
Learn more about OWASP Zap
Sample Customers
YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm57%
Software R&D Company14%
Engineering Company14%
Comms Service Provider14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm26%
Manufacturing Company14%
Government9%
Software R&D Company7%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business30%
Midsize Enterprise22%
Large Enterprise48%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise3%
Large Enterprise77%
REVIEWERS
Small Business25%
Midsize Enterprise17%
Large Enterprise58%
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: May 2019.
347,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.

Sign Up with Email