We performed a comparison between Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What's most valuable in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is its ability to identify vulnerabilities in open-source components, especially if some critical issues exist."
"The product is stable and scalable."
"The integration part is easy...It's a stable solution right now."
"The customer service and support were good."
"Checkmarx unifies all the features in its service."
"One of the strong points of this solution is that it allows you to incorporate it into a CICB pipeline. It has the ability to do incremental scans. If you scan a very large application, it might take two hours to do the initial scan. The subsequent scans, as people are making changes to the app, scan the Delta and are very fast. That's a really nice implementation. The way they have incorporated the functionality of the incremental scans is something to be aware of. It is quite good. It has been very solid. We haven't really had any issues, and it does what it advertises to do very nicely."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is the comprehensive security scan."
"It is very easy and user friendly. It never requires any kind of technical support. You can do everything on your own."
"Stable and scalable, with good reporting features. Helps in detecting and managing vulnerabilities and risks."
"The main feature, and one of the most important, is the static code analysis. We are able to complete an analysis of the security flaws with this platform. It's very good at helping us find and fix flaws."
"The user interface is excellent, the code review process is quick and provides great analytics to understand our code better, and the SAST scan is high-speed."
"The platform itself has a lot of AppSec best practices information, especially in the mitigation recommendation process."
"The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months."
"One thing that I like about Veracode is that it is quite a good tool for dynamic application testing."
"Because it is a SaaS offering, I do not have to support the infrastructure."
"We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes."
"In terms of areas for improvement, what could be improved in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is pricing because customers always compare the pricing among secure DevOps solutions in the market. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis has a lot of competitors yet its features aren't much different. Pricing is the first thing customers consider, and from a partner perspective, if you can offer affordable pricing to your customers, it's more likely you'll have a winning deal. The performance of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis also needs improvement because sometimes, it's slow, and in particular, scanning could take several hours."
"Some of the recommendations provided by the product are generic. Even if the recommendations provided by the product are of low level, the appropriate ones can help users deal with vulnerabilities."
"Instant updates for end users to identify vulnerabilities as soon as possible will make Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis better. The UI of the solution could also be improved."
"Its pricing can be improved. It is a little bit high priced. It would be better if it was a little less expensive. It is a good tool, and we're still figuring out how to fully leverage it. There are some questions regarding whether it can scan the MuleSoft code. We don't know if this is a gap in the tool or something else. This is one thing that we're just working through right now, and I am not ready to conclude that there is a weakness there. MuleSoft is kind of its own beast, and we're trying to see how we get it to work with Checkmarx."
"The quality of technical support has decreased over time, and it is not as good as it used to be."
"Parts of the implementation process could improve by making it more user-friendly."
"Personally, I currently use it as a standalone tool without integrating it with other systems, and it meets my needs adequately. As a suggestion, I request on considering to add a "what if" feature to the application. Currently, when the tool identifies issues and suggests updates, if I want to explore different scenarios, I need to prepare another file, turn it into a ZIP, and run the analysis again. It would be more convenient if there was a "what if" option in the GUI. This feature could simulate a run, allowing me to quickly check the impact of changing one or more files or versions without the need for a full rerun."
"It can have better licensing models."
"One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications."
"On-premise implementation is not available."
"Another problem we have is that, while it is integrated with single sign-on—we are using Okta—the user interface is not great. That's especially true for a permanent link of a report of a page. If you access it, it goes to the normal login page that has nothing that says "Log in with single sign-on," unlike other software as a service that we use. It's quite bothersome because it means that we have to go to the Okta dashboard, find the Veracode link, and log in through it. Only at that point can we go to the permanent link of the page we wanted to access."
"The UI is not user-friendly and can be improved."
"It does not have a reporting structure for an OS-based vulnerability report, whereas its peers such as Fortify and Checkmarx have this ability. Checkmarx also provides a better visibility of the code flow."
"The scanning takes a lot of time to complete."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"There are times when certain modules cannot be scanned automatically, requiring us to manually select these modules and initiate the scanning process on our side."
More Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is ranked 8th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 12 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 194 reviews. Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is rated 9.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis writes "Comprehensive security scan, helpful support, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is most compared with Black Duck, JFrog Xray, Semgrep Supply Chain, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and FOSSA, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) vendors.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
