Checkmarx One Reviews

It moved our organization towards being agile vs. waterfall.

Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle.

The areas in which this product needs to improve are:

• C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported.
• There were issues in regards to the JSP parsing.
• Defect report generation takes multiple hours for large projects.
• The Jenkins plugin does not work for projects that are larger than 4 million lines of code.
• The Eclipse plugin does not work.
• The hardware requirements for the tool add to the substantial cost of the solution and thus, increase the total cost of ownership.

• There seems to be a decline in the support team's responsiveness as our contract nears its end.

• We felt like we were the extended quality organization for Checkmarx as they frequently released poor quality patches that broke the existing functionality. A lot of the organizational hours, almost 1 FTE per year since Checkmarx was implemented, were spent to allow regression testing of the product. The Checkmarx SME team at my company had to do this testing to ensure that we do not expose product flaws to our user community.

We did encounter stability issues. The different versions of this product provide inconsistent results when the same piece of code is scanned.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

The support team is knowledgeable. However, we still have tickets open from 2014. There is a lot of follow up required to get closure on issues.

Previously, we were using a different solution. We were leveraging multiple tools since we have code in multiple languages. Checkmarx advertised that they provide support for C, C+++, Java, etc. It turned out that they aren’t able to scan C and C++ for us. Our reason to switch to Checkmarx didn’t work out for us.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies.

I suggest using a trial term to run a gamut of scenarios that need to be leveraged before settling in with the Checkmarx solution.

We evaluated the Veracode option.

The product is not mature and ready for the enterprise usage yet. It is okay to use it when the support expectations are low and the code is in languages that require support only in Java and .NET.

We use the solution for scanning the code for security.

One of the most valuable features is it is flexible. 

The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps.

In an upcoming release, they could improve by adding support for more languages.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I have found the solution to be stable.

The scalability of the solution is good. We have approximately 4000 using the solution in my organization and they are mostly engineers.

The technical support we have experience was good but they could be faster.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Checkmarx a six out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is SAST, Static Application Security Testing.

Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution.

There are many good features like site integration, but the most valuable feature for us is the XL scan of source code. 

It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues. Some competitors have this feature, and it helps a lot to concentrate on the real findings.

In general, stability is good, although sometimes it crashes. We use this product daily, and I would rate the stability a four out of five.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support for this solution is very effective. Each time we have had questions, the answers they provided have been very clear and comprehensive.

Prior to this solution, we were using IBM Security AppScan. We had many, many issues with the application, along with complaints about the deployment time. The main reason we switched is that it was not updated, and it did not support certain technologies. For example, it did not support Visual Studio 2017, so we had to switch to a new solution.

The initial setup for this solution is straightforward.

It took less that one day to deploy.

We handled the implementation in-house.

We have not yet seen ROI.

We did evaluate other options.

If people are in need of static application security, then I would recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Now we have information about which specific sections have to be fixed. We can now remove the issue from most of the sections.

The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations.

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.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I would give technical support a rating of 8/10.

We switched solutions due to the client's requirements.

I faced a few issues in the installation due to my local policies. The customer support was very helpful.

We looked at other tools, such as HPE Security and ZAP solutions.

Go for it, if you want testing on the code level.

We use Checkmarx for static analysis as part of our software development lifecycle. It is very important because it helps us identify the security flaws in the code at a very early stage. Ultimately, this helps in reducing costs.

The UI is very intuitive and simple to use. You don't need to know anything about the product before you being working with it.

The interface used to audit issues is also simple to use.

Compared to similar products, the code scanning time is fast.

Most the the static analysers come with pre-loaded rulesets. However, many times developers have to write their own custom rules. Writing custom rules in Checkmark is difficult because you need a different editor which is licensed separately. Besides not much training material is available on how to write the rules. 

We have been using Checkmarx for almost four years.

It is pretty stable and we have not had any issues. We have a monitoring team that monitors the health of our infrastructure and we are alerted to any problems.

We were able to scale easily and did not have any issues in doing so. At this team, we have between 70 and 80 applications that we are scanning with it.

We have contacted technical support a couple of times and the issues were addressed in a timely manner.

We have used other products and found that you have to spend considerable time fine-tuning the scanning engine. With Checkmarx, it is a lot less and I would say that this is one of the significant differences with this solution.

The maintenance in terms of running the scans and fine-tuning the scans is very low.

On the other hand, we have used other tools where writing custom rules is not so difficult to do.

Checkmarx is pretty straightforward and very easy to set up.

Our in-house team deployed and manages this product. I have one person who handles all of it, and the deployment can be completed within a day or two. As long as the infrastructure is ready, it can be done within a day.

Checkmarx helps us to find problems with source code at an early stage in the development, which saves us in terms of troubleshooting costs.

The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost.

Checkmarx is probably one of the best static code analyzers available in the market at this point. It is very easy to deploy, use, and maintain. The amount of maintenance required is pretty low. It is absolutely a good tool that I can recommend.

Checkmarx has added a lot of functionality since we began using it. This includes OSA, the open-source scan, a training module, and run-time protection.

For static code analysis, we are only using Checkmarx and we plan to continue. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case solution is for code scanning.

It has made our organization more efficient with our whole code scan/deployment process for our software applications.

The most valuable features are:

• Ease of use
• Dashboard
• Interface
• Report

I have not had an issue with stability of the product.

There have been no issues with scalability that I am aware of.

I have not needed the use of technical support.

Previously, we considered: Veracode, SonarQube, Fortify and IBM Security AppScan.

I was not involved in the initial setup of the solution.

One should consider:

• Visual studio
• Report generation
• If the solution can be on-prem
• Pricing

It is an expensive solution.

Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up.

I have used it for source code scanning of security vulnerabilities. It seems to be a good tool. It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences.

We have scanned various applications with it. It works fine, although we need to check manually for false positive issues. 

After scanning, it shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are, which helps us to analyze them.

It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use.

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.

Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is pretty stable.

It has the capability to scale very easily. It is not a problem.

Their support is good. It has a good webpage with a lot of details.

It is very easy to set up. It takes a couple of days. It is not an issue.

It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Checkmarx a nine out of 10.