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

"After scanning, it shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are, which helps us to analyze them."
"We are using Checkmarx for analyzing threats."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis, so it's very handy."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"Checkmarx is probably one of the best static code analyzers available in the market at this point."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted the organization, and since replacing the previous tool, SAST and SCA scans are conducted in a couple of minutes instead of hours or days, saving time and increasing speed to market by reducing the timeline from three or four days to one day only."
"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."
"PyCharm is saving me time and money in general."
"The recent AI-powered code completion is pretty cool."
"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."
"The solution has a great debugging feature."
"The integrated code structure makes coding more organized and manageable compared to using Python alone."
"The latest AI features and tab completion features are good."
"The product's IDE feature is quite user-friendly."
 

Cons

"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"Customizing the tool can make it complicated."
"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."
"They give some functionality to use Python Notebook, but it's not great."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
"They should improve the product's interactiveness."
"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 solution does not support some features of OpenCV even though it is part of a PyCharm package."
"There should be support for the RUST plugin in the Community edition for debugging."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's pricing is fine."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"It's relatively 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."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"The solution is costly."
"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."
"The community edition is free, which is good."
"The community edition is free and the professional edition has a licensing fee."
"The price is reasonable."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.
896,692 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.
896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.