Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap comparison

Checkmarx and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while OWASP is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 10.4% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

17,957 Views
14,186 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,310 Views
6,725 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Checkmarx One and OWASP Zap compete in the software security category. Checkmarx One has an upper hand in terms of customer service and ease of deployment, while OWASP Zap is preferred for its feature set and cost-effectiveness.

Features: Checkmarx One offers comprehensive scanning capabilities, robust pricing, and integration options. OWASP Zap provides an extensive feature set, open-source flexibility, and strong customization possibilities.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One needs enhanced response times, better report generation, and more efficient support channels. OWASP Zap requires improved documentation, a streamlined setup process, and more user-friendly updates.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One is recognized for straightforward deployment and commendable customer service. OWASP Zap, while having a steeper learning curve, benefits from strong community support.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One's high setup costs are offset by strong ROI through effective vulnerability identification. OWASP Zap's free nature gives it a clear advantage in initial costs, though expertise hiring can impact perceived ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Checkmarx One

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

3rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.4%, down from 12.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Checkmarx One	10.4%
OWASP Zap	3.9%
Other	85.7%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution

Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance

Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.

Read full review

Prasant Pokarnaa

Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies

Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed

OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"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 most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."

"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."

"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."

"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."

"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."

"Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are its integration with multiple SCM solutions and CICD tools, its ability to scale according to user licenses, and the quick scanning process."

More Checkmarx One pros

"They offer free access to some other tools."

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."

"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."

"I consider OWASP Zap to be the most effective solution overall; being open source allows integration with other systems via OWASP Zap APIs."

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."

"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."

"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."

"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."

"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."

"The validation process needs to be sped up."

"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."

"The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."

"There isn't too much information about it online."

"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."

"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."

"Checkmarx is not a cheap scanning tool, but none of the security tools are cheap. Checkmarx is a powerful scanning tool, and it’s essential to have one of these products."

"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."

"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."

"Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications)."

"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"The tool is open-source."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?

I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.

See all answers

What do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 48% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 17% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

January 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

January 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

December 2025

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap report.

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.