No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Chainguard Containers vs Checkmarx One comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

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

Qualys TotalCloud
Sponsored
Ranking in Container Security
11th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (11th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (8th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (8th), SaaS Security Posture Management (SSPM) (2nd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (7th)
Chainguard Containers
Ranking in Container Security
29th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
3.7
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Container Image Security (1st)
Checkmarx One
Ranking in Container Security
15th
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 (12th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Qualys TotalCloud is 1.7%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Chainguard Containers is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Checkmarx One is 3.0%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qualys TotalCloud1.7%
Checkmarx One3.0%
Chainguard Containers1.0%
Other94.3%
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2859021 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Security Engineer at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
Risk-based triage has transformed container security and now prioritizes high-impact threats
The best features Qualys TotalCloud offers currently include managing cloud infrastructure and container security while facing major challenges such as alert fatigue. Traditional vulnerability scanners flag hundreds of CVEs on short-lived Kubernetes containers, some of which have no internet exposure or are gone before we can even triage them. I leverage Qualys TotalCloud to move beyond static CVSS. I use it to implement runtime exposure, correlation risk reprioritization, and shift-left integration. This notifies developers to fix a base image upstream rather than patching live ephemeral instances. In my work with cloud and container security, the biggest operational hurdle was alert fatigue. I use Qualys to shift left from static CVSS severity to context-aware risk prioritization. I correlated raw vulnerability data with real-time risk factors such as public network exposure, active runtime execution, or overly permissive IAM roles. This allows us to immediately drop the priority of isolated containers and escalate lower-severity CVEs that sit on an exposed, high-risk path. We can map these findings directly back to our CI/CD pipelines so developers can patch the root base images upstream. We have drastically cut down the signal-to-noise ratio, saved a lot of manual hours doing triage work, and ensured engineering effort goes directly towards high-impact risk reduction.
ParthasarathyT - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Infrastructure Engineer at Publicis Sapient
Secures container builds, has simplified compliance audits and reduced vulnerabilities dramatically
The benefit of Chainguard Containers is that it makes development simpler. It makes the development team confident there will not be any bugs or vulnerabilities in the image they are using. It is mainly needed for vulnerabilities, SLAs, security audits, and SOC 2, ISO, and PCI compliance. The image includes SBOM, signature, and provenance metadata, which makes audits much easier. The best features Chainguard Containers offers include a reduced image size. It removes the shell and the package manager, resulting in a significantly smaller image size compared with a normal image. We can deploy production workloads directly without worrying about security concerns. If we want a strong supply chain for security, we will be using it. Many users are already tired of scanning alerts, so this will be a great thing. Removing the shell and package manager has positively impacted my team's workflow and deployment speed by making it quite user-friendly, where the developer can touch it without any hesitation. Chainguard Containers are built and pushed from non-patched binaries, with the packages compiled directly from the source. No dependencies or pre-built distro packages like Debian or Alpine are required, so there are no hidden vulnerabilities. The developer gains full control over what goes inside, and the image size is smaller with fewer vulnerabilities, in fact, zero. It has built-in processes like SBOM, which is Software Bill of Material generated. The image is cryptographically signed, and provenance is tracked, leading to faster patching, minimal footprint, and best supply chain control. Chainguard Containers has positively impacted my organization by reducing constant CVE fixing, resolving security versus DevOps conflicts, and minimizing compliance headaches. After implementing secured-by-default containers, there is less effort on fixing vulnerabilities, faster delivery, and better compliance. The impact on security teams includes a lower risk of attack, less panic during audits, and significantly fewer security noises. A specific outcome we have noted since implementing Chainguard Containers is that for a client who uses more than 200 containers, they previously received vulnerability warnings for every deployment. Once we implemented Chainguard Containers, the vulnerability ratio drastically decreased, from 100 to 30. Nearly 70% of the vulnerability checks have passed. Chainguard Containers are CVE-resistant, which is significant as CVEs represent Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Qualys TotalCloud's most valuable features are its cloud security posture management, Kubernetes, and container security capabilities."
"The best feature would be the ability to create policies. It is easy to control and update policies as required."
"Qualys TotalCloud is overall the best tool available in the market for scanning purposes."
"Qualys TotalCloud fulfills all these needs."
"TotalCloud's best feature is the integration of cloud accounts. It helps with the risk and security posture management of our cloud infrastructure."
"The biggest strengths of Qualys TotalCloud are that it is pretty good at cloud visibility, has easy integration, and also has multi-cloud compatibility."
"Qualys TotalCloud has significantly reduced our workload in terms of managing risks, helping us to be more efficient and save substantial resources."
"The platform's unified view of the organization proves particularly valuable for leadership team meetings."
"Specific outcomes and metrics show that before this, every month there would be 15 to 20 vulnerabilities, but after switching to Chainguard Containers, there are now only one or maybe two vulnerabilities."
"Chainguard Containers has positively impacted my organization even during the proof of concept phase by improving our security posture."
"The best feature of Chainguard Containers is being distroless, and the main thing I liked about it is that they follow the SBOM process and the continuous rebuilds they were doing, and they were helping me to rapidly remediate the failures which were happening."
"Chainguard Containers has positively impacted my organization by reducing constant CVE fixing, resolving security versus DevOps conflicts, and minimizing compliance headaches."
"The user interface is modern and nice to use."
"The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile, and if the code has dependencies or build errors the scan fails, while with Checkmarx pre-compile scanning is seamless and allows us to scan more code."
"It has made our organization more efficient with our whole code scan/deployment process for our software applications."
"Overall, we are very satisfied with Checkmarx and it is a product that I recommend."
"It's been a very positive experience overall."
"One of the most important tools in our building process."
 

Cons

"We encountered challenges identifying the correct resource category for certain items, such as those in containers or storage."
"The response part of the Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) module can be improved."
"The cost of Qualys TotalCloud is high and could be more competitive."
"Qualys' customer service provides quality answers, but the response time is long, even though it is within the SLA."
"TotalCloud could improve its scanning of niche devices like Wi-Fi dongles and USB modems because they are often untested. It covers everything else, like laptops, mobile devices, and Bluetooth IoT devices. They can improve on the small IoT devices because hackers and testers use these."
"The areas in the solution that have room for improvement include the UI/UX design, which should be improved, and they should integrate more artificial intelligence into the product."
"One thing that could be improved is the user experience and navigation."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"The only limitation or challenge that stood out during my evaluation of Chainguard Containers was the fact that it is primarily based on Alpine, which can be tricky to use in native Kubernetes environments, as we use Tecton primarily, which is a CI/CD pipeline that runs on native Kubernetes."
"The accuracy and reliability of the output from Chainguard Containers are below average, but I still give it an average rating of 6.5 to 7 because of its capabilities and its functionality for a developer-friendly approach."
"Sometimes there are backend errors which we come across again and again, and there is a resolution, but there are pending tickets for it. That sucks sometimes."
"The biggest challenge in Chainguard Containers is that they provide minimal images, which can make troubleshooting difficult because common debugging tools are also not included."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"I can't create a business case with multiple-factor authentication."
"Their licensing fees are rigid and this causes two main issues. One is a restriction in terms of scaling the product at an enterprise level."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"Checkmarx needs improvement in its Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and API security features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While Qualys TotalCloud's pricing is currently acceptable, it is becoming increasingly expensive and may soon be considered overpriced."
"The pricing is comparable. It is built into our other product, so I cannot piecemeal it. It is a part of our subscription."
"The pricing for TotalCloud is attractive and competitive in the market. Given the features, especially the dashboard, I have no concerns regarding pricing."
"Qualys TotalCloud is expensive, but it offers a premier solution with no headaches."
"Qualys TotalCloud is cost-efficient and was selected for its value compared to other products."
"I am not sure about the pricing. From what I understand, it is a bit on the higher side, but I do not have the exact numbers."
"Qualys TotalCloud is expensive."
"As a middle management member, I do not have direct pricing knowledge, but based on the knowledge from our meetings, its pricing is competitive."
Information not available
"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 a good product but a little overpriced."
"The solution is costly."
"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
16%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise34
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Qualys TotalCloud?
In terms of improvement, remediation still belongs to the cloud team, which is one of the issues we faced with Qualys...
What is your primary use case for Qualys TotalCloud?
My main use case for Qualys TotalCloud is regarding the cloud visibility that we were not having previously. Previous...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Chainguard Containers?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that while I work on implementation and do not manage billin...
What needs improvement with Chainguard Containers?
The only limitation or challenge that stood out during my evaluation of Chainguard Containers was the fact that it is...
What is your primary use case for Chainguard Containers?
Chainguard Containers was a tool brought into my enterprise as a proof of concept that we evaluated, but we have not ...
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 ...
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 Ap...
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 additi...
 

Also Known As

Qualys TotalCloud with FlexScan
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Information Not Available
YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Find out what your peers are saying about Chainguard Containers vs. Checkmarx One and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.