Checkmarx vs. FossID Workbench

If you are going with SAST process or want to improve overall security posture then go for it like integrating it with post deployment steps. If you are more concerned about proactive controls better choose other options such as pee-commit hooks and CI security. Also choose other tools for DAST and API scans.

Incentivized

• Supports a large number of languages
• Finds a large variety of potential risks

Incentivized

• DAST capability can be the one where it does not support native use case of using OTP based arch
• API Scanning is something that lacks a bit due to not much customizations
• Branch wise reports for SAST is not available

Incentivized

Checkmarx's usability is generally good, but it can be a bit complex for new users. The interface may take some time to get used to, especially for those unfamiliar with security tools. Once you become familiar with it, it’s effective and integrates well into development workflows.

Incentivized

Checkmarx is easier to integrate with development tools and gives quick feedback during coding, which is helpful for developers. Veracode is more focused on scanning and reporting for compliance, but it’s more complex to set up. We chose Checkmarx because it fits better into our development process, offering faster scans and more useful suggestions for fixing problems

Incentivized

• Great diversity of vulnerabilities covered.
• Quicker scans
• They are feature rich compared to other tools I used in the past.
• Dashboards are not customizable enough.
• High number of false positives take up time and sometimes make our report look bad.

Incentivized