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

Checkmarx One vs GitHub Advanced Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 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 Application Security Tools
3rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)
GitHub Advanced Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.2%, down from 11.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitHub Advanced Security is 4.9%, down from 7.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One10.2%
GitHub Advanced Security4.9%
Other84.9%
Application Security Tools
 

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.
Sabna Sainudeen - PeerSpot reviewer
Director, Application Security at Carlsberg
Seamlessly integrates into developer environment for streamlined code scanning
GitHub Advanced Security should look into API security issues, which they currently do not. Additionally, open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner. There are features in GitHub Advanced Security that cannot be used within Microsoft, which is strange since they are the same company. It should also focus on developing a software bill of materials (SBOM) to see all open software used in one place.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"Checkmarx One has definitely helped us to save time and reduce the need for additional security resources, meaning employees."
"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."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"GitHub Advanced Security is a very developer-friendly solution that is integrated within my development environment."
"GitHub Advanced Security is ten out of ten scalable."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"I have not experienced any performance or stability issues with GitHub Advanced Security."
"GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"GitHub Advanced Security's secret scanning is good."
"GitHub Advanced Security uses artificial intelligence in the backend, specifically CodeQL, to analyze code and provide fewer but more reliable findings, so there are less false positives."
 

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 product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."
"The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better."
"Checkmarx One can be improved on the side of faster scans, especially when our CI pipelines are scanning for vulnerabilities."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"GitHub Advanced Security should look into API security issues, which they currently do not. Additionally, open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
"An area of GitHub Advanced Security that has room for improvement is customization."
"Open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"Maybe make it compatible with more programming languages. Have a customized ruleset where the end-user can create their own rules for scanning."
"The reporting feature might need improvement. While it integrates seamlessly with my workflow, it doesn't provide management with oversight, such as statistics and the number of vulnerabilities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."
"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is 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."
"​Checkmarx is not a cheap scanning tool, but none of the security tools are cheap. Checkmarx is a powerful scanning tool, and it’s essential to have one of these products."
"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 average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"The current licensing model, which relies on active commitments, poses challenges, particularly in predicting and managing growth."
"The solution is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

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 Business1
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
 

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 do you like most about GitHub Advanced Security?
It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part.
What needs improvement with GitHub Advanced Security?
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inli...
What is your primary use case for GitHub Advanced Security?
I'm working with software development nowadays. As a process, we are using the dependent bot alerts and the code scanning for Java, and some of the code scanning is happening. Security secrets in c...
 

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. GitHub Advanced Security and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.