Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Checkmarx One vs Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Vulnerability Management
17th
Ranking in Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
3rd
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), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (7th), AI Security (2nd)
Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto N...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
28th
Ranking in Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.5
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (13th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (18th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (13th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (12th), Software Supply Chain Security (8th), Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management (CIEM) (7th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (5th)
 

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.
reviewer1980216 - PeerSpot reviewer
Business Development Manager For Palo Alto Networks at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Unified security platform has simplified multi-cloud protection and improved threat response
From the commercial perspective, we have some limitations because Palo Alto has a minimum number of users of endpoints set at 200, which is quite high for the Italian market. Additionally, there is not a clear MSP model compared to other vendors such as CrowdStrike. These are significant limitations, especially today when managed services are becoming increasingly important for end users. Palo Alto decided to limit some functionalities because they want to stress more on Cortex XSIAM. I do not agree with this strategy because Cortex XSIAM is a completely different market compared to Cortex XDR. This is the main issue of Cortex—the commercial model Palo Alto is implementing. The product is very good; the problem is the commercial model. There are probably some areas for improvement because Palo Alto is growing too much. Today the challenge is to have skilled people, which I believe is the same issue everywhere. I do not agree with this decision.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"Overall, I use Checkmarx One as a strategic control point to improve developer velocity while strengthening application security across the full software lifecycle."
"The best features Checkmarx One offers, in my opinion, are that it is easy to use, and there is not much deep diving into this."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are its integration with multiple SCM solutions and CICD tools, its ability to scale according to user licenses, and the quick scanning process."
"The most beneficial aspect of Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Palo Alto in general is that there is a single platform for all cloud providers for securitization."
"The AI and automation features in detecting and responding to high-risk threats are impressive; it's one of the best tools regarding AI technology and unifies security in one platform in real-time, improving vulnerability analysis, incident response, and compliance reporting."
"From a technical standpoint or pricing, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is a stronger solution in the market at the moment compared to other products from ConnectWise or Symantec."
"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks has impacted our organization positively by keeping our machines secure and our team using the dashboard to find issues quickly."
"I have absolutely seen improvements in our incident close rates, with mean time to detect and respond reduced significantly, sometimes by at least forty to fifty percent."
"Overall, Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is a technically strong product, and I rate it ten out of ten."
"I have seen several benefits from using Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks: It was easy to use and easy to migrate from the IBM platform."
 

Cons

"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 reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"Checkmarx One can be improved on the side of faster scans, especially when our CI pipelines are scanning for vulnerabilities."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"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."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is creating some confusion in terms of names because this is recent."
"Overall, I rate Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks as an eight out of ten. I think that it could improve on price, as I know that the Google solution has the best price, and this is one of the conditions."
"From the commercial perspective, we have some limitations because Palo Alto has a minimum number of users of endpoints set at 200, which is quite high for the Italian market."
"The negative aspects or areas for improvement in the product include the fact that the cost might be a bit high, which challenges commercials, but not technically."
"The pricing is high, making ROI challenging to justify, especially during transitions between solutions."
"Some aspects of the GUI can be confusing and make it difficult for me to find certain options or navigate where needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."
"It is a good product but a little overpriced."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 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
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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 Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?
The solution is costly, with high-end capabilities suitable for enterprises. It is less affordable for startups or small-scale vendors.
What needs improvement with Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?
Regarding areas for improvement, the tool performs its functions well, but frequent name changes across Palo Alto Networks products can be frustrating for technical teams who must continually adapt...
What is your primary use case for Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks?
Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks serves as our primary tool for understanding our assets and performing API integration between our multi-cloud infrastructure, specifically AWS and Azure, to gain...
 

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. Cortex Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.