We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and SonarCloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"It is a stable product."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"I'm not implementing the solutions. However, I've talked to the people who deploy the tools, and they are happy with how easy setting up SonarCloud is."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"The most valuable features of SonarCloud are the ability to discover vulnerabilities, security weak points, security hotspots, and all the feedback that comes into the feature branch. You can deploy the code with the security, you can eliminate the problem at the developer level rather than identifying the problem in the productions."
"SonarCloud is overall a good tool for identifying code smells, bugs, and code duplication, but we've found that using Android Lint is more effective for our needs."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"The solution provides continuous code analysis which has improved the quality of our code. It can raise alarms on vulnerabilities with immediate reports on the dashboard. Few things are false positives and we can customize the rules."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"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."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"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 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."
"SonarCloud can improve the false positives. Sometimes the gates sometimes act a little weird. We then need to manually go and mark the false positive."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"The documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"CI/CD pipeline is part of a whole chain of design, development, and production, and it's becoming increasingly crucial to optimize the various tools across different stages. However, it's still a silo approach because the full integration is missing. This isn't just an issue with SonarCloud. It's a general problem with tooling."
"It would be helpful if notifications could go out to an extra person."
"The reports could improve by providing more information. We are not able to use the reports in our operation until they are improved. Additionally, if the vendor provided more customization capabilities it would be a benefit."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 67 reviews while SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 10 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while SonarCloud is rated 8.4. 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 SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Sonatype Lifecycle, whereas SonarCloud is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, OWASP Zap, GitLab and Coverity. See our Checkmarx One vs. SonarCloud report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
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.