We performed a comparison between Apiiro and Checkmarx One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The workflow automation is likely the best aspect of the solution."
"Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly."
"The solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc)."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."
"User management is a little bit clunky."
"I would like support for our self-hosted Git server, other than GitHub, just regular Git."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"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 pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"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."
Apiiro is ranked 21st in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 2 reviews while Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews. Apiiro is rated 8.6, while Checkmarx One is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Apiiro writes "A great secrets detection feature, good visibility, and integrates well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". Apiiro is most compared with Snyk, Ox Security, Cycode and SonarQube, whereas Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity. See our Apiiro vs. Checkmarx One report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors, best API Security vendors, and best Risk-Based Vulnerability Management 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.