We performed a comparison between Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis and FOSSA based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What's most valuable in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is its ability to identify vulnerabilities in open-source components, especially if some critical issues exist."
"I appreciate the user-friendly interface. The GUI is excellent, providing detailed information on outdated versions, including version numbers and the flow of library calls. This allows me to plan and prioritize library changes based on potential vulnerabilities, even if the affected library is indirectly used in my project. The tool offers specific guidance on addressing these issues."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is the comprehensive security scan."
"The product is stable and scalable."
"The tool's visual scan analysis shows me all the libraries' vulnerabilities and license types. It helps identify the most complex issues with licenses. It provides good visibility. SCA shows me all libraries that are vulnerable and the extent of their vulnerability."
"The integration part is easy...It's a stable solution right now."
"One of the strong points of this solution is that it allows you to incorporate it into a CICB pipeline. It has the ability to do incremental scans. If you scan a very large application, it might take two hours to do the initial scan. The subsequent scans, as people are making changes to the app, scan the Delta and are very fast. That's a really nice implementation. The way they have incorporated the functionality of the incremental scans is something to be aware of. It is quite good. It has been very solid. We haven't really had any issues, and it does what it advertises to do very nicely."
"The customer service and support were good."
"Their CLI tool is very efficient. It does not send your source code over to their servers. It just does fingerprinting. It is also very easy to integrate into software development practices."
"FOSSA provided us with contextualized, easily actionable intelligence that alerted us to compliance issues. I could tell FOSSA exactly what I cared about and they would tell me when something was out of policy. I don't want to hear from the compliance tool unless I have an issue that I need to deal with. That was what was great about FOSSA is that it was basically "Here's my policy and only send me an alert if there's something without a policy." I thought that it was really good at doing that."
"What I really need from FOSSA, and it does a really good job of this, is to flag me when there are particular open source licenses that cause me or our legal department concern. It points out where a particular issue is, where it comes from, and the chain that brought it in, which is the most important part to me."
"I am impressed with the tool’s seamless integration and quick results."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ease and speed of integrating into build pipelines, like a Jenkins pipeline or something along those lines. The ease of a new development team coming on board and integrating FOSSA with a new project, or even an existing project, can be done so quickly that it's invaluable and it's easy to ask the developers to use a tool like this. Those developers greatly value the very quick feedback they get on any licensing or security vulnerability issues."
"One of the things that I really like about FOSSA is that it allows you to go very granular. For example, if there's a package that's been flagged because it's subject to a license that may be conflicts with or raises a concern with one of the policies that I've set, then FOSSA enables you to go really granular into that package to see which aspects of the package are subject to which licenses. We can ultimately determine with our engineering teams if we really need this part of the package or not. If it's raising this flag, we can make really actionable decisions at a very micro level to enable the build to keep pushing forward."
"Policies and identification of open-source licensing issues are the most valuable features. It reduces the time needed to identify open-source software licensing issues."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to identify all of the components in a build, and then surface the licenses that are associated with it, allowing us to make a decision as to whether or not we allow a team to use the components. That eliminates the risk that comes with running consumer software that contains open source components."
"Parts of the implementation process could improve by making it more user-friendly."
"In terms of areas for improvement, what could be improved in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is pricing because customers always compare the pricing among secure DevOps solutions in the market. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis has a lot of competitors yet its features aren't much different. Pricing is the first thing customers consider, and from a partner perspective, if you can offer affordable pricing to your customers, it's more likely you'll have a winning deal. The performance of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis also needs improvement because sometimes, it's slow, and in particular, scanning could take several hours."
"I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten."
"I have received complaints from my customers that the pricing could be improved."
"Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis should improve dynamic analysis."
"It can have better licensing models."
"API security is an area with shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The quality of technical support has decreased over time, and it is not as good as it used to be."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"I wish there was a way that you could have a more global rollout of it, instead of having to do it in each repository individually. It's possible, that's something that is offered now, or maybe if you were using the CI Jenkins, you'd be able to do that. But with Travis, there wasn't an easy way to do that. At least not that I could find. That was probably the biggest issue."
"For open-source management, FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine is easy to use, but the list of licenses is not as complete as we would like it to be. They should add more open-source licenses to the selection."
"On the legal and policy sides, there is some room for improvement. I know that our legal team has raised complaints about having to approve the same dependency multiple times, as opposed to having them it across the entire organization."
"We have seen some inaccuracies or incompleteness with the distribution acknowledgments for an application, so there's certainly some room for improvement there. Another big feature that's missing that should be introduced is snippet matching, meaning, not just matching an entire component, but matching a snippet of code that had been for another project and put in different files that one of our developers may have created."
"The solution provides contextualized, actionable, intelligence that alerts us to compliance issues, but there is still a little bit of work to be done on it. One of the issues that I have raised with FOSSA is that when it identifies an issue that is an error, why is it in error? What detail can they give to me? They've improved, but that still needs some work. They could provide more information that helps me to identify the dependencies and then figure out where they originated from."
"On the dashboard, there should be an option to increase the column width so that we can see the complete name of the GitHub repository. Currently, on the dashboard, we see the list of projects, but to see the complete name, you have to hover your mouse over an item, which is annoying."
"I want the product to include binary scanning which is missing at the moment. Binary scanning includes code and component matching through dependency management. It also includes the actual scanning and reverse engineering of the boundaries and finding out what is inside."
More Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is ranked 8th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 12 reviews while FOSSA is ranked 9th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 12 reviews. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is rated 9.2, while FOSSA is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis writes "Comprehensive security scan, helpful support, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of FOSSA writes "Compatibility with a wide range of dev tools, web and "C-type", enables us to scan across our ecosystem, including legacy software". Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is most compared with Black Duck, JFrog Xray, Semgrep Supply Chain, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Mend.io, whereas FOSSA is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Mend.io, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and GitLab. See our Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs. FOSSA report.
See our list of best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) vendors.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.
