No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmarx One vs PyCharm comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

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 Code Analysis
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Vulnerability Management (15th), Container Security (14th), API Security (4th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)
PyCharm
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.1%, down from 17.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PyCharm is 2.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One9.1%
PyCharm2.2%
Other88.7%
Static Code Analysis
 

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Sahil Sanskar Jha - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Advanced machine learning workflows have become faster but still need better memory efficiency
In PyCharm, I find several components and libraries to be the most valuable. The support that Jupyter Notebook offers is essential, as we work through Jupyter regularly. Scientific libraries such as NumPy, Pandas, Matplotlib, and Plotly are integral to our work. Machine learning libraries including scikit-learn, PyTorch, and TensorFlow are used extensively. Hugging Face integration is particularly valuable because it is easily findable, the documentation is comprehensive, and it can be directly integrated with the IDEs we work with. The intelligent code editor in PyCharm definitely helps me manage code quality and efficiency in my projects. When using these libraries, it makes parallelization of data very efficient, allowing me to use multi-thread programming architecture. The code can work for multiple datasets rather than one at a time. With native Python code, a machine learning deployment taking 45 to 50 minutes to calculate can be efficiently reduced to a minute or half a second using these libraries.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The visibility the solution gives you is great; it really gives you the ability to see what the root issues in the code actually are."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"We are using Checkmarx for analyzing threats."
"The license is fairly costly but worth the investment."
"They have some of the best features which make the product wonderful."
"Checkmarx is probably one of the best static code analyzers available in the market at this point."
"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."
"The best feature of PyCharm is that it gives you hints whenever it detects any issues while you are coding. This is important because it helps us code faster and without any errors."
"The latest AI features and tab completion features are good."
"The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone."
"The automated package installation is helpful. I like the code highlighting features. A huge library of plugins is available, including AI coding tools, though I don't use those myself. The debugging tools are good, showing errors and problem lines."
"PyCharm is saving me time and money in general."
"With native Python code, a machine learning deployment taking 45 to 50 minutes to calculate can be efficiently reduced to a minute or half a second using these libraries."
"The solution provides a good comprehensive debugging feature that I like and which is easy to use."
"It is an excellent, fully integrated IDE with smart code analysis capability and a built-in debugger. It is a fantastic tool."
 

Cons

"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"For Checkmarx One, I think that adding repositories and scanning impromptu code could improve it."
"There are some downtimes when Checkmarx One is being upgraded to the latest version or some improvement is there."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"Checkmarx could probably do something to improve their license model."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"A potential area of improvement in PyCharm at this point would be memory efficiency."
"The solution does not support some features of OpenCV even though it is part of a PyCharm package."
"The refactor facility in PyCharm is not on par with the refactor facility in IntelliJ. It could be improved since IntelliJ offers many more options for refactoring."
"The navigation can be better."
"There is room for improvement in memory usage. It uses too much memory. It can get a bit heavy, especially when you have too many open files and the system becomes very slow."
"Notebooks in PyCharm is not as intuitive as it could be."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
"One issue with JetBrains tools, including PyCharm, is their heavy resource usage. They can be slow to start, especially when beginning a new project, as it takes some time to index."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an expensive solution."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"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)."
"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"The community edition is free, which is good."
"They have a free Community edition, and they also have a licensed version. They definitely have an annual license. They probably also have a monthly license. Its pricing is good and reasonable. It is a little bit more expensive than the others, but it is well worth it. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"I don't have much info on the pricing, but I would say it is somewhat competitive."
"The community edition is free and the professional edition has a licensing fee."
"The price is reasonable."
"I use the free community version, so I'm saving money there."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
5%
Performing Arts
13%
Marketing Services Firm
12%
University
12%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

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.
What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
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...
What needs improvement with PyCharm?
A potential area of improvement in PyCharm at this point would be memory efficiency. PyCharm is based on its IntelliJ platform, which is Java-based, meaning it can be very memory-intensive, especia...
What is your primary use case for PyCharm?
My main use case for PyCharm is for machine learning operations.
What advice do you have for others considering PyCharm?
I use PyCharm's debugging tools on a case-by-case basis. The libraries are generally documented well enough that in most cases when I am debugging, half of the errors are found by the IDE initially...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. PyCharm and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.