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 (16th), Container Security (15th), API Security (4th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (1st)
PyCharm
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
5th
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 May 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.6%, down from 18.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PyCharm is 2.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One9.6%
PyCharm2.3%
Other88.1%
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

"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"The consistency of code showed our team where they are inconsistent or where they have made simple omissions."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization because in the past, when Checkmarx One scan was not implemented, we faced a lot of issues finding vulnerabilities inside the repository, but now, since we have integrated Checkmarx One into our repository, we can smoothly and very easily find vulnerabilities and manage those effectively."
"It provides a graphical view of any vulnerabilities."
"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."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"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."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"PyCharm is saving me time and money in general."
"The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone."
"The solution has a great debugging feature."
"The solution has a nice environment and extensions that make it easy to develop software."
"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."
"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 recent AI-powered code completion is pretty cool."
"Good syntax highlighting and very it's very customizable."
 

Cons

"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve."
"The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"This solution is not very easily scalable, and seems to lack the capability to manage a high volume of applications."
"Checkmarx One can be improved on the side of faster scans, especially when our CI pipelines are scanning for vulnerabilities."
"They give some functionality to use Python Notebook, but it's not great."
"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."
"They should improve the product's interactiveness."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
"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 breakpoints could be improved as they are not that intuitive to use."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"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."
"It is an expensive solution."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"I use the free community version, so I'm saving money there."
"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 community edition is free, which is good."
"The price is reasonable."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.
895,272 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
5%
Performing Arts
13%
Marketing Services Firm
12%
University
12%
Manufacturing 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 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 Checkmarx?
One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If it is possible to set it in the SAST portal to scan the repositories automaticall...
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.
895,272 professionals have used our research since 2012.