Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), 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)
PyCharm
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
6th
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 March 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.1%, down from 21.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PyCharm is 2.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Code Analysis Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One10.1%
PyCharm2.2%
Other87.7%
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

"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"I have seen a return on investment from Checkmarx One."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"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 pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"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."
"It is an excellent, fully integrated IDE with smart code analysis capability and a built-in debugger. It is a fantastic tool."
"The recent AI-powered code completion is pretty cool."
"The solution has a nice environment and extensions that make it easy to develop software."
"PyCharm is saving me time and money in general."
"We have integrated the tool with GitHub. PyCharm provides easy integration with GitHub, allowing us to push changes directly. Many plugins are available on PyCharm for GitHub integration, including GitHub Copilot for auto code completion and GitHub Copilot Chat for assistance with code-related queries."
"The product's IDE feature is quite user-friendly."
"PyCharm has an excellent user experience, and I appreciate its cross-platform capabilities."
 

Cons

"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"The resolutions should also be provided. For example, if the user faces any problem regarding an installation due to the internal security policies of their company, there should be a resolution offered."
"I can't create a business case with multiple-factor authentication."
"The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"Some were valid and some were not applicable for us based on the scenario."
"Notebooks in PyCharm is not as intuitive as it could be."
"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."
"PyCharm's use of system resources can get pretty heavy. Loading, in particular, takes longer than I would like and I think they should optimize it so that it's a bit lighter on the system."
"The breakpoints could be improved as they are not that intuitive to use."
"The solution does not support some features of OpenCV even though it is part of a PyCharm package."
"The solution is heavy because running it on laptops consumes a lot of memory and power. Typically, a laptop battery might last about eight to nine hours, but with the tool running, it reduces to two hours or one and a half hours at most. It is designed to handle large projects and heavy tasks, making it resource-intensive. For smaller projects, use IDEs like Visual Studio Code."
"The user interface and overall user experience could be more intuitive to make it easier for users to navigate and utilize the software effectively."
"A potential area of improvement in PyCharm at this point would be memory efficiency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's relatively expensive."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"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."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"The community edition is free, which is good."
"I don't have much info on the pricing, but I would say it is somewhat competitive."
"I use the free community version, so I'm saving money there."
"The price is reasonable."
"The community edition is free and the professional edition has a licensing fee."
"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.
883,619 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
Performing Arts
15%
University
14%
Marketing Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

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 do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
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 do you like most about PyCharm?
The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone.
What needs improvement with PyCharm?
The breakpoints could be improved as they are not that intuitive to use.
What is your primary use case for PyCharm?
I use PyCharm for work, specifically for coding.
 

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: February 2026.
883,619 professionals have used our research since 2012.