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 7.9, while OWASP is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.5. Checkmarx holds a 11.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 5.0% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 70 Checkmarx One reviews

22,192 Views
14,708 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 39 OWASP Zap reviews

11,947 Views
6,382 Comparison Views

87% 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: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. OWASP Zap

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,296 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

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (3rd), Vulnerability Management (22nd), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

8th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 11.0%, down from 13.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 5.0%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Rohit Kesharwani

Manager, Engineering at 7-Eleven.

Provides good security analysis and security identification within the source code

We integrate Checkmarx into our software development cycle using GitLab's CI/CD pipeline. Checkmark has been the most helpful for us in the development stage. The solution's incremental scanning feature has impacted our development speed. The solution's vulnerability detection is around 80% to 90% accurate. I would recommend Checkmarx to other users because it is one of the good tools for doing security analysis and security identification within the source code. Overall, I rate Checkmarx a nine out of ten.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

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 user interface is modern and nice to use."

"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."

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

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."

"Vulnerability details is valuable."

"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."

"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."

"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."

More Checkmarx One pros

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."

"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."

"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."

"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."

"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."

"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."

"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."

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

"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."

More Checkmarx One cons

"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."

"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."

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

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."

"The product reporting could be improved."

"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."

"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."

"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."

"The solution's price is high and you pay based on the number of users."

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."

"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."

"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."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

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

"The tool is open source."

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

"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."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

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

842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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?

The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.

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 Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Checkmarx One

Compared 45% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 12% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Checkmarx One

Compared 6% of the time

Coverity vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 22% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 15% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 5% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

March 2025

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2025

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

March 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: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,296 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.