We performed a comparison between Checkmarx and Snyk based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Snyk has an edge in this comparison. According to its reviewers, it is a less expensive product than Checkmarx.
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"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 UI is user-friendly."
"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"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."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."
"What is valuable about Snyk is its simplicity."
"A main feature of Snyk is that when you go with SCA, you do get properly done security composition, also from the licensing and open-source parameters perspective. A lot of companies often use open-source libraries or frameworks in their code, which is a big security concern. Snyk deals with all the things and provides you with a proper report about whether any open-source code or framework that you are using is vulnerable. In that way, Snyk is very good as compared to other tools."
"Snyk helps me pinpoint security errors in my code."
"I am impressed with the product's security vulnerability detection. My peers in security are praising the tool for its accuracy to detect security vulnerabilities. The product is very easy to onboard. It doesn't require a lot of preparation or prerequisites. It's a bit of a plug-and-play as long as you're using a package manager or for example, you are using a GitHub repository. And that is an advantage for this tool because developers don't want to add more tools to what they're currently using."
"The solution has great features and is quite stable."
"There are many valuable features. For example, the way the scanning feature works. The integration is cool because I can integrate it and I don't need to wait until the CACD, I can plug it in to our local ID, and there I can do the scanning. That is the part I like best."
"Our overall security has improved. We are running fewer severities and vulnerabilities in our packages. We fixed a lot of the vulnerabilities that we didn't know were there."
"Its reports are nice and provide information about the issue as well as resolution. They also provide a proper fix. If there's an issue, they provide information in detail about how to remediate that issue."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"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."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"It is an expensive solution."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"I would like to give further ability to grouping code repositories, in such a way that you could group them by the teams that own them, then produce alerting to those teams. The way that we are seeing it right now, the alerting only goes to a couple of places. I wish we could configure the code to go to different places."
"They need to improve the Snyk plugins and make it easier to make your optimizations based on your own needs or features."
"A feature we would like to see is the ability to archive and store historical data, without actually deleting it. It's a problem because it throws my numbers off. When I'm looking at the dashboard's current vulnerabilities, it's not accurate."
"Compatibility with other products would be great."
"For the areas that they're new in, it's very early stages for them. For example, their expertise is in looking at third-party components and packages, which is their bread-and-butter and what they've been doing for ages, but for newer features such as static analysis I don't think they've got compatibility for all the languages and frameworks yet."
"DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings."
"The tool's initial use is complex."
"The log export function could be easier when shipping logs to other platforms such as Splunk."
Checkmarx One is ranked 2nd in DevSecOps with 67 reviews while Snyk is ranked 1st in DevSecOps with 41 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Snyk is rated 8.2. 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our Checkmarx One vs. Snyk report.
See our list of best DevSecOps vendors and best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all DevSecOps 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.