We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Imperva Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"It has all the features we need."
"If you are using the appliance as opposed to the virtual deployment, it can stand as the network layer-two and provide real transparency."
"The solution has been quite stable. I have not seen any bugs at all."
"The most valuable features of Imperva Web Application Firewall are the monitoring of databases and the dashboards are easy to understand."
"Imperva WAF's strongest features are the detection of web application threats and vulnerabilities in the source code."
"Compared to other web application firewalls in the market, Imperva does things in the most accurate way."
"The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism."
"The WAF itself has been very valuable to me because it has such a complete range of features. Another reason why I like it is because it also takes care of the total overview of the traffic over the network."
"It has fewer false positives"
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"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."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"I would like the solution to improve its support response time."
"The tool's UI is complicated. It would be best to have a more accessible UI dashboard to make the job easier."
"I am looking for more data enrichment. We should have the ability to add our own custom data to the system, to the live traffic."
"I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall is a good system, but we found that the visibility of the diverse-path server, e.g. where the traffic is coming from, the different IPs, etc., needs improvement."
"The signature updates could be faster. Sometimes we have to upload signatures to the Imperva portal for checking and analysis before we can use them."
"They recently separated the WAF and the DAM management gateways in order for each of these to be managed from different areas, so I believe it now requires additional investments for what was previously a single complete solution."
"The UI interface needs improvement."
More Imperva Web Application Firewall Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Imperva Web Application Firewall is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 47 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Imperva Web Application Firewall is rated 8.6. 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 Imperva Web Application Firewall writes "Offers simulation for studying infrastructure and hybrid infrastructure protection". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Imperva Web Application Firewall is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Azure Front Door. See our Checkmarx One vs. Imperva Web Application Firewall report.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
