We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Synopsys Code Dx based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."
"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"The user interface is modern and nice to use."
"The customers were looking for something around static security and dynamic security, and in all those areas, they were looking for an industry leader with a proven solution. Synopsys is a Gartner leader, so I position this particular technology for the technical pre-sales part of it."
"The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."
"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."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
"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."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"The initial setup is a bit challenging because things are not easy. It needs a lot of technology adaptability plus the customer's environment-specific use cases."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Synopsys Code Dx is ranked 31st in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Synopsys Code Dx is rated 0.0. 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 Synopsys Code Dx writes "Facilitates continuous assessment of applications, covering both static and dynamic security aspects". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Synopsys Code Dx is most compared with Veracode, Coverity and SonarQube.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.