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 (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (7th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)
PyCharm
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
6th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.5%, down from 22.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PyCharm is 2.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Code Analysis Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One10.5%
PyCharm2.1%
Other87.4%
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.
EB
Senior Consultant at Mark Gurry & Associates
Seamless integration streamlines tasks and boosts productivity with efficient task handling
PyCharm's utility supports various Python frameworks such as Django and Flask for development projects. Uvicorn is well supported in project creation. Users can choose which framework to create and it handles all the code scaffolding automatically. I use PyCharm Intelligent Code Editor for context-aware code completion, and I also use the new AI extensions that JetBrains provided recently. I find it particularly useful in code refactoring. It saves me time on boilerplate code, such as interaction with the database. I can ask the AI facility in PyCharm to create all the boilerplate code for various databases. I don't write boilerplate code for mundane tasks anymore and focus on the business logic rather than the usual ancillary functions such as collecting records from the database or making network calls. This type of work is all done by AI.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted the organization by providing resolution strategies and indicating which vulnerabilities need to be fixed."
"Overall, I use Checkmarx One as a strategic control point to improve developer velocity while strengthening application security across the full software lifecycle."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"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."
"It has all the features we need."
"The solution has a great debugging feature."
"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 has an excellent user experience, and I appreciate its cross-platform capabilities."
"The latest AI features and tab completion features are good."
"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 solution has a nice environment and extensions that make it easy to develop software."
"The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone."
"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."
 

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."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"It takes around 30 to 40 minutes for checking a build. If you can make it within five minutes or 10 minutes, that would be great."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it."
"Checkmarx One can be improved by reducing noise and improving false positive filtering."
"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."
"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."
"Customizing the tool can make it complicated."
"The navigation can be better."
"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."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
"The solution does not support some features of OpenCV even though it is part of a PyCharm package."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"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."
"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"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."
"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."
"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."
"It is a good product but a little overpriced."
"The community edition is free and the professional edition has a licensing fee."
"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."
"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 use the free community version, so I'm saving money there."
"The price is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.
882,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
5%
Performing Arts
16%
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 Enterprise5
 

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: December 2025.
882,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.