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."The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes."
"The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The compliance is the most valuable aspect."
"The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good."
"There are some features that are configured by default, so even without doing much, it can still provide a level of protection."
"Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva."
"The most valuable features of Imperva Web Application Firewall are the monitoring of databases and the dashboards are easy to understand."
"It has fewer false positives"
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Imperva, in addition to its strong knowledge base, is its effective protection for web applications."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the API integration. It was complex for us. Additionally, The onboarding could be better."
"There's always room for improvement. Occasionally, there might be false-positive alerts."
"The only disadvantage of Imperva is that it is a pretty costly solution."
"Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use."
"The process to upgrade from one version to another can be a lot simpler than it is currently."
"The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year."
"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."
"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."
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.